Damphousse reacted to Andrew Reid in LukiLink project turns smartphones into an HDMI monitor
Fitted it for first time to one of my Android devices...
I am using a spare Axon 7. Could use Samsung S8+ as well but that's my main phone and Axon 7 is right up there with OLED screen and great battery life. Whole thing is super small and light... Can't say the same about many much more expensive HDMI-monitors. A real relief not to have to add Canon batteries to the back.
It is nice how incredinly light it is... In total (cable, clamp, LukiLink) it adds a barely noticable weight to the smartphone. Very impressive on that front.
The only thing I'd like to see changed is the cable on the LukiLink. It isn't swappable and has a large legacy USB connector on the end, when my phone is USB-C. That means the cable sticks out quite far from the phone because I have to use an OTG adapter.
My link to download the pre-release copy of the app from Frank expired before I got to it, but will hopefully get that installed tomorrow on my device and start testing.
As you can see from the photos I stuck mine to the back of the smartphone clamp rather than the phone itself, so phone can be de-attached in an instant and used seperately at any moment.
So yeah initial pros and cons...
Super light Small physical footprint on the phone Clamp and locking velcro work well HDMI port can exit at any angle, lots of choices with mounting the port (I have it pointing downwards from back of screen) Cons
Wish it had a USB C slot instead of a fixed standard USB cable Wish the hotshoe ball socket for connecting to camera was just a small hinge about 1cm high instead. Always hated these ball-socket things and spidery arms.
Damphousse reacted to Andrew Reid in LukiLink project turns smartphones into an HDMI monitor
I have banned Evgeny's two accounts for trolling.
Damphousse reacted to Mark Romero in How High An ISO Will You Go On Your GH5???
True. With my current setup I use my Sony 10-18 f/4 and it is certainly wide enough (both for videos and stills).
I generally shoot RE interior video at around 20 to 24mm full frame equivalent, so for m43 format I would need (apparently) somewhere around 10 to 12mm lens.
Damphousse reacted to yoclay in The other issue with the C200
They won't say anything yet because the C200 hasn't even reached their premises.
The majority of rental houses would not say the C200 is an A-Cam by the way. No way. That's like saying people are currently renting the C100 as an A-Cam. For that it would need at least a broadcast quality codec and for the moment that is not the case. This is not an accident.
The vast majority of rentals are for cameras that people cannot afford themselves. The average price point for a camera rental package is 10-30K. Otherwise people just buy the cams. The C300's go out all the time. They are one of the most popular cameras out there for rental. The cost of renting a C300 is not very different than renting a C100, so why go with the latter ?
I know this because I worked in rental houses. And by the way, the camera is to a rental package what the burger is to Mcdonalds. An excuse to sell the fries.
It's all the extras around the cameras which people cannot afford where they make their money.
In larger markets like Los Angeles and New York by the way, the majority of owner operators own at least a RED Epic. It's practically expected by clients these days.
That's minimum 15K. Sad but true (I pretty much hate RED).
You spoke about the rest of the video market. The average level of camera for working professionals for local spots is at least a Sony FS7. Configured that's 10K.
That is because it is broadcast spec and has the minimum bells and whistles. The same reason why they might own a C300 as well.
Showing up with only a GH5 or an A7SII would be a big no-no for even local producers.
By the way, I haven't worked for Cinema5D in about 4 years, so frankly do not have a clue what their thinking is around the subject.
Damphousse reacted to Chris Oh in Cheap vs Expensive Camera Blind Test
I can't vouch for other manufacturers in the states, but I have bought multiple times from Canon USA, refurbished.
They look new, just in a different box. And they come with warranty. Other third party stores claiming "refurb" and a scam? Maybe.
At least refurb straight from Canon USA? I don't think it's a scam.
Damphousse reacted to Papiskokuji in The Canon C200 is here and its a bomb!
Man, I suffer in silence when I read some stuff here (I guess I'm masochist to keep reading it). But this one is too much for me... On what ground do you think it should cost 2,500$ ? Please tell me. Do you know a video camera costing that price and doing this ? And don't tell me blackmagic please (fan of the brand, but their cameras aren't in the same price range and they are way less reliable and easy to use, and no autofocus, no support) Do you know a pro 1/3 sensor camcorder costs more than 2500$ (Sony, Canon) ?. It might not be the camera for you, that I totally understand but with all due respect, I think your comment is from a spoiled naive non pro shooter who doesn't know the requirements of pro work and on being on the field with reliable equipment.
People always complain, at some point it's just ridiculous. They want new technology right away, but when Sony releases a new camera too soon, they think theirs just became obsolete and hate Sony for it. In the mean time they blame Canon for holding off. And now they unleash something very unexpected from them, still complaints. Same goes for bitrates. Canon files take too much space, now they want that kind of bitrates in their gh5, and they're suddenly ok with the file size. And all that to end up posting videos on Youtube (which is not a bad thing but just all those concerns are irrelevant for that type of delivery).
Anyway, this camera seems to be freaking great. Canon used to deliver not on specs but on the field and with the image quality/mojo. Now this one also has the specs ! Granted an intermediate codec is more than necessary for a camera at this price point, but it will come down the line anyway.
Pffiou, sorry I had to get it out of my chest Now I can burn in hell !
Damphousse reacted to Matthew19 in How white balance works in camera?
It's really all about how our brains work. From what I can tell, our brains balance for color temps 2500k up to 9000k - after that it seems to accept the color cast, which explains why twilight (14000kish) actually looks cool and candle light (1800k) looks warm. Same for sunsets. So If anything is in between those numbers I balance for neutral white and beyond that It makes sense to just go with it.
Also sunsets actually have two light sources, the sky, which can be very cold, and the warm sun. So if someone is back lit by the sun thats not really your key light. I often shoot golden hour at 7500k to match the sky and let the sun be like a warm rim light.
Damphousse reacted to Don Kotlos in How white balance works in camera?
Using a set WB and adjusting in post with an 8bit codec is a very bad practice for the following reasons:
1. With 8bits per channel you loose a lot of color information, that upon correction will give you flat colors with minimal tonal differences (skin will look like plastic) and a lot of banding (but interestingly at least in theory you could get less sky banding if you shift your WB to cooler values, just don't have a face in the scene )
2. The sensor itself is not equally sensitive across the visible spectrum, consequently the colors will shift to different hues
3. Artificial lights have non-uniform spectra (fluorescent bulbs is the most extreme) and that will amplify the hue differences and flatter tonalities.
Adjusting the WB in post to bring back the warmness or coolness of the scene will always give you a better result.
Forgetting the WB in one setting might sound easier, but it is a bad practice that will definitely give you more problems.
Going back to the main thread subject, any natural light (daylight, shade, clouds) is easy and can be a set value of temperature & tint for each. Artificial lights always need custom adjustments in both temperature and tint, and never ever AWB (at least with Sony cameras).
Damphousse reacted to Don Kotlos in Fidel film?
I wonder if many people know who that is. His name is Fulgencio Batista, one of the many US-backed dictators of the world. Here is the wiki article for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista. I urge you to read it, it will not take more than 5 minutes of your time.
If you don't then I will just include three quotes from your past president JFK:
"At the beginning of 1959 United States companies owned about 40 percent of the Cuban sugar lands—almost all the cattle ranches—90 percent of the mines and mineral concessions—80 percent of the utilities—practically all the oil industry—and supplied two-thirds of Cuba's imports".
"Fulgencio Batista murdered 20,000 Cubans in seven years ... and he turned Democratic Cuba into a complete police state—destroying every individual liberty. Yet our aid to his regime, and the ineptness of our policies, enabled Batista to invoke the name of the United States in support of his reign of terror. Administration spokesmen publicly praised Batista—hailed him as a staunch ally and a good friend—at a time when Batista was murdering thousands, destroying the last vestiges of freedom, and stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from the Cuban people, and we failed to press for free elections"
"Batista's rule was one of the most bloody and repressive dictatorships in the long history of Latin American repression""
Fidel was an attorney who had run for parliament in 1952 elections that Batista canceled with yet another coup. When Batista felt he had made his fortune he fled Cuba with it, and after years of struggle Fidel and his army took charge.
Guess what happened after that.
The bay of pigs invasion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion).
I bet this will make a much more interesting story that can educate people and help them elect wiser Presidents.
P.S. Oliver Stone has two documentaries about Fidel Castro that are worth watching. Also Oliver Stone's "Untold history of US" is a great doc series to watch.
Damphousse reacted to Arikhan in How to save the consumer camera: DON'T!
Yes, but most people I know, just downsample the 4K footage to 1080p NOT because for crop / zoom / pan, but for benefits of IQ in downscaled sequences. The lack of honest 1080p is still a shame for all manufacturers declaring the mushy something their cameras deliver as "Full HD"....The race to more and more resolution is just a blatant marketing lie, if manufacturers aren't capable to deliver the resolution they claim when selling their devices. So, the "1080p lie" is just the same as the coming "4K lie": for honest (real) 4K the manufacturers will tell us, we need 8K footage...WTF? Why do consumers have to handle 4K, when just needing 1080p?
For sure, shooters who want to crop, zoom, or pan around are well with 4K. These possibilities are doubtless benefits of the high resolution footage. But the lack of real 1080p forces camera users to shoot in 4K. I don't like people forcing me to buy a Porsche Cayenne, when I just need a car for modest mobility purposes only...Many manufacturers don't care about our real needs and requirements - they just about caching technical lacks in their overpriced devices and care much more about marketing wish-wash...
Look, I shoot 4K too - because I love tack sharp footage. But this is my hobby. Beeing realistic, I NEED "real" 1080p only...Just because it's much easier to work with on a "normal" laptop, doesn't need much storage space as 4K, etc., and because a vast majority of today's consumers watch footage on small mobile displays or TVs with a maximum of FullHD resolution. Without any doubt, 4K is useful and "real" 4K well shooted is really beautiful...BUT: Why do consumers have to handle 4K, when just needing 1080p?
Damphousse reacted to markr041 in HDR on Youtube - next big thing? Requirements?
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.
Damphousse reacted to Axel in The mainstream media needs to be destroyed, and we need to do it.
Everybody who states he could bring back an industry that keeps everybody employed for the payment they were used to is a liar. Like Trump i.e. - and everybody else, to be fair. There need to be major changes, new infrastructures, new industries aiming for the future, subsidized by whom? People need to be qualified, because untrained workers will be needed even less in the future, and they will be paid less.
These changes, if s.o. had any idea, any concept in the first place, would take time. One lost generation. You can't let people starve. There has to be a minimum income for everybody. Enough to make you feel part of the civilization.
Everything else leads to disaster, unavoidable. These conditions can't be tolerated in one of the richest countries of the world. One day you would see people hanging from the trees. Probably not bankers or politicians.
I sometimes think it's time to wake up from the American Dream. Trump is the ugly truth. Grotesque wealth is for very few. It tends to drive you mad.
Damphousse reacted to Policar in HDR on Youtube - next big thing? Requirements?
I agree! I still have my ST60 Panasonic plasma even though it's old tech by now. I do think the state of the art OLED sets are better but my eyes aren't good enough to need 4k at normal viewing distances anyway, though most people I know are getting 4k displays now. The dithering on plasmas makes them a little soft to begin with, but the ST60 is fine.
I saw HDR demoed on a smaller 1080p screen after seeing state of the art 4k projection and there's no comparison. I actually don't think 4k looks any better unless you walk right up to the screen or it's projected on a huge screen. I'm beginning to see the advantage for acquisition (for cropping in or whatever) but I think Netflix and YouTube and Amazon are sort of doing this for marketing rather than quality. It's a marketing thing meant to get people to replace their displays. I find it really laughable that people think this is something that matters. The old 1080p plasma screens have better acutance and the illusion of better resolution at normal viewing distances. However if you have the money a 4k OLED would be even better!
Your plasma is 100 nits at full brightness. Brightest highlight, every setting maxed out to bright. I've seen two HDR displays demoed and one was 4,000 nits and the other was 10,000 nits or more .So imagine all that contrast and better resolution and better color detail and then on top of that it goes 100X brighter but not just brighter, the darker areas are still as dark and well-rendered (actually much better). The sun looks like the sun. It doesn't look like an image of the sun. It's amazing tech. On top of that you're getting much richer reds and greens. It's just a massive jump in quality.
Fwiw, current-gen HDR-certified displays are 600 to 1000 nits. That's what's commercially available. So while those will look really really good.... They're nowhere near what's possible. I think energy conservation standards may prevent HDR from taking off, however. HDR projection standards will also never compare with home monitors in terms of contrast or brightness. So this may be something that never emerges as mainstream or properly-implemented. State of the art is 3XLED per-pixel (similar to Sony's "crystal led" technology) and LED efficiency is already high. This is very very expensive and still too inefficient for widespread use. OLED doesn't cut it for brightness/efficiency. Standard LED/LCD doesn't cut it for contrast. So we may be left with 1000 nit faux-HDR, which should look much better than anything you've ever seen, but nowhere near what's being demoed. Sony has 4000 nit displays at trade shows. That's very interesting because at that point it does feel very different. Only small areas of the screen can be that bright at once, but a large area that bright would be almost painful to look at. We'll see when and if this technology becomes commercially available. 4000 nits is a ways away and I wouldn't consider anything less than that representative of HDR.
Damphousse reacted to Policar in HDR on Youtube - next big thing? Requirements?
The camera spec I believe is 15 stops, but I saw film and F65 footage that looked fine as HDR.
That's similar to asking why an HD screen is required to view HD when you can downscale to SD. Truth is, tone mapping only goes so far. With HDR, it's the difference between listening to a very compressed (dynamic range compressed while mastering, not MP3 compressed but that too) track on your iPhone with bad headphones vs being at the concert live. It's the difference between a cheesy tone mapped image and being there. It's really incredible and difficult to describe because no screens exist now that can approximate the high end test beds.
Imagine that the image you're seeing of a day exterior isn't an image, but instead a window, with as much contrast as your eye can see and as many colors. Or even colors that you have never seen before. The sun can be so bright on an HDR set that it's unpleasant to look at. Imagine if your tv could get as bright as looking into a 60w bulb and as black as pure darkness. Sure you can compress that range, but why would you want to?
Damphousse reacted to Don Kotlos in What Trump means for new camera technology
Jonesy while I respect your opinion, putting in the same sentence "lets build a wall" and "sensible immigration policy" is contradiction.
I agree that we should take people more seriously, but polarized opinions like that don't help.
Damphousse reacted to Richard Bugg in The mainstream media needs to be destroyed, and we need to do it.
There is an old legal principle called 'The Plain Meaning Rule" which is basically that people say what they mean, and they mean what they say. It's interesting to see the contortions some people are going to to say that Trump didn't, in fact, mean what he said, or that what he said was just a code for something much more palatable. While a lot of people are trying to convince themselves that Trump doesn't really mean what he has said, many others are fearful that he does indeed mean what he has said. I recall some similar commentary when Rodrigo Duterte came to power recently in the Phillipines, promising a spate of extrajudicial killings for anyone involved in the drug trade. It turns out that good old Rodrigo did in fact mean what he said. The jury is out with Trump, because nobody actually has any idea of what he is going to do. The American people have unleashed the unknown onto the rest of us. Let the experiment begin.
Damphousse reacted to fuzzynormal in The mainstream media needs to be destroyed, and we need to do it.
Oh, I think you can speak for at least about half of Americans with that sentiment.
Make no mistake, POTUS campaigning is a game of rhetoric. Clinton is not good at it, which is why she was unable to turn out the vote. She only needed to convince about 1 outta 200 voters in the swing states to win enough electoral votes. More absurd rhetoric and concerted outreach to uneducated rust-belt whites would have helped her, to be honest. A little more verve with some "I'll totally create jobs for you, absolutely!" stuff.
On the other hand, that's not who she is. She knows coal is doomed, for instance, so why promise jobs to the sector? Things like that. Pragmatism in a campaign is not a good strategy. It's noble and honest, but not a winning game.
And really, I'm not going to poo-poo Trump in everything. He gets a chance from me. A very very skeptical chance, but a legit one. He's talking about an infrastructure WPA-type program. Which seems like that would make the GOP's leader's heads explode, so we'll see.
Totally bummed about the SCOTUS thing though.