leeys

I see this whole HFR 3D thing as almost a separate medium from traditional film. 
Laser projection is an entirely separate discussion, and imo should supplant traditional bulbs asap.

The only Mac I'll consider buying is a big one from McDonalds.

I really can't tell if the latter's tips will work with the Fotga's DMW-DCC8 knockoff. If they don't the most universal solution is to get a battery with an AC inverter.

they've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, this advice works every time! 

OK, I can't figure out whether to take your advice and not take your advice or not take your advice and take your advice!

The film industry is constantly changing – we all know that.  But the thing that doesn’t change – the PA life – and it mostly stinks. Underpaid, overworked, abused mentally and physically.  Almost as timeless as filmmaking itself.
Production Assistants.  They are the low people on the totem pole – the entry job into filmmaking.  You don’t need a resume.  Just get recommended by a friend and have a smile and please be on time.
PAs do many things.  Some are assistants to the director or producer, or the production manager, or the first assistant director.  They can do equipment runs, drive a van on nonunion shoots, do coffee runs, cable wraps, assist departments, do crowd control, lock down streets, get releases, just about everything.
They aren’t protected by any union and at the end of the day, they usually make minimum wage, which is sad to me because they do this on shoots where everyone else is usually paid well.
In New York they make about $100 to $200 a day on a commercial shoot.  Sometimes up to $300 a day.  But they work on average 14 hours a shoot day.  They get there 1hr to 1.5 hours before “call time” and stay till the end – including wrapping out, and many times driving home the crew.
So that’s around $7.14 a day which is lower than minimum wage in NYC which is $8.75 an hour in 2015.
I was a PA on set for about six months and in post production for about two years.  I did a bunch of stuff.  Drove a van. Picked up gear.  Picked up coffee.  Got yelled at about getting a bad walkie talkie – and by a DP who called me “Ed Wood and a pain in the ass” and gaffers and grips (never wrap cable unless you ask them first) – but overall I had it pretty easy. Being a post production PA is a lot easier – it’s a controlled environment.  Not as potentially chaotic as being on set.
I’ve heard a lot of horror stories.  The worse happened this year – I heard of a PA who died driving – don’t know if it was after a long shoot day or after the job wrapped.  I have heard stories of a PA delivering the stools of a producer to fed ex – his feces, packing them up and mailing them off. And just the usual stuff – getting berated by assistant directors, directors, and producers.  Not getting paid after the job.  And of course just working very long hours and no overtime.
There are a lot of stories if you ask around – but the thing is for me, I wish someone would look out for them.  Take Mad Max – Fury Road – $145 million dollar Hollywood production – and the PAs made $60 a day.  Link here.  
Why is this?  Why do people think PAs deserve to work long hours and get paid below minimum wage?  I think it’s because “that’s the way it is” – they just go with the flow.  Also most PAs are starting out – they aren’t going to complain and organize because they don’t want to be seen as being a “bad sport” – they want to start their career in film.  But the thing is, someone then has to say something about this.  And many people have.  And now, why not, I’ll go for it.
Here’s things I think could improve the production assistant’s way of life.
1.  Make sure PAs are paid for overtime work.  There is no reason they aren’t.  They aren’t the “producer” – and even producers should get paid overtime.  Why shouldn’t everyone get paid for the hours they put in?  If you don’t want to charge for overtime, fine, but if you do charge for overtime, you should be paid.  I know the justification is that the pick up and drop off days are usually half days at full pay – but still, why not just do overtime and negotiate a rate for the pick up and post day that’s the same.  Legally all people need to be paid for overtime in the USA – so why can the film industry get away with this?
2.  Make a group or website that sets a standard for PA rates.  This could be any website – or blog.  I say, and why not, the PA day rate on a commercial should be $200-300 a day for a 10 hour day.  Overtime at 10-12 at time and a half.  After 12 double time.  Turnaround time 12 hours or minimum.  Just like the standard is for everyone union member unless you want to do on a 12 hour day then double time after that.  Why not?  Why not give PAs a living wage as they “climb the ladder” – what is really the harm in that?  If they have more money, they can give back more to the economy and other things. Pay their rent.  Not have to live three hours away or move away.
3.  Put PAs into departments – like camera PA, lighting PA, production PA, etc etc.  Have it more specialized – makes them more productive and know what to do.  I think a lot of time on set, PAs can receive no marching orders.  And I’ve worked with PAs who work so much better when they are under the command of a smaller department.
4.  Today’s PA is tomorrow’s Boss.  So why not treat them well.  They may soon be hiring you for the next gig.
The film industry sets a high standard of decency and fairness.  We DPs are part of a community of sharing information and helping others – we are storytellers – we help get people’s messages across to so many. We are a very nice profession – full of really amazing, caring, lovely people.  I love my co-workers so much.  So many of them make me laugh.
So why not look back at the ones starting out try to help them?
I love when people are happy and positive on my sets – when people want to learn and don’t feel like they are being taken advantage of.  The energy of every crew member really helps.
At the same time, a bad apple hurts the collective energy. So let you help me.
There is nothing better on any set, than at the end of the day, when you feel like you and your co-workers help create something beautiful or meaningful, and all did it together – where everything comes together. I want everyone to feel that pride – everyone – the craft service person, the security guard, the medic, the PA.

I started out as an unpaid intern. I would have killed for $100 a day. If you ask me, that's the real problem. Exploitation of unpaid labor.

​I can't speak for this, but it should work. The image of the rear is out of focus so I can't really tell.
To answer your question: The presence of the lens is trigged by a mechanical switch behind the lens mount. It's located at about 4-5 o'clock position if the lens mount is facing you.

​I can speak for myself.  The answer is procrastination.

Guys guys. Why are you arguing with what is clearly an immature geek who just wants to wank to paper specs all day?

Host 'em at imgur, then attach 'em via 'Insert other media' > 'Insert image from URL', use the 'Direct image link' from your imgur upload.
All given f-stops are in fact the correct aperture f-stop of a particular lens. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean much. Therefor T-stops should actually be given for any lens out there. Can't imagine the Sigma being off, the cine mod is T2.0 and just overall the Sigma is brilliant though.

I'm sorry to say, but i think it's a terrible idea. We know how the consumer operates, people would then only look at the this megapixel count, as they already do with cameras. It's already not a good thing with cameras but it can make sense i guess sometimes, because it can be important. A lens is sooooo much more than its  megapixel resolving power. Besides, most people actually don't care enough to really mind if it has a high resolving power or not. Like you said, a lot use the kit lens and they're very happy with it, it's good enough for them and the may not want to spend any more money on it. The few others who know enough about lenses, optic, and photography in general to really be interested in this matter, also know enough to go look for reviews, test, advice, photos on flickr etc...
Plus, people would always ask "how many megapixels does that lens resolve" without know anything else about the lens, only focalizing on this, when everything else about a lens is so interesting and important. And to conclude, i guess MTF charts are there solely for that purpose.

​MTF charts published by lens producers are already greatly reduced in complexity, in that in general they only show contrast for two spatial frequencies (usually 10 and 40 lp/mm) and two aperture values (usually wide open and f/8) and two image plane orientations (sagital and tangential). The "full" MTF is a four dimensional quantity which is difficult to represent in 2 dimensions. I put "full" in quotes because it also depends on focal length for a zoom lens, and, to an extent, on the focus distance thus it can be a six-dimensional object.
I hope you can appreciate why it's impossible to boil a six-dimensional function down to a single number. You could simplify it further and measure the MTF at a few distances from the image centre (centre, top/bottom edge, left/right edge and extreme corner), but it's been heavily simplified already and that would cut a lot out.
You could try averaging the figures but the range you average over would be fairly arbitrary and subject to differences between manufacturers. And the idea that manufacturers attach a resolution figure to the lens in order to sell them would just open the flood gates to clever ways to inflate the score by carefully choosing what to include/exclude.

No they really shouldn't. A lens does not "resolve 6MP".
A lens renders a certain spatial frequency at a certain contrast ratio. It might take detail at 20 line pairs per millimeter and produce 70% contrast, detail at 50 line pairs per millimeter results in 30% contrast etc. This relationship is captured by the modulation transfer function (MTF), a quantity which varies according to the distance from the image centre, and the direction you measure in (sagital vs tangential). Manufacturers already publish MTF charts for their lenses, which is the equivalent of what you're suggesting, only much more meaningful. There are some differences in how these charts are computed (e.g. whether diffraction is included or not) so they're not always directly comparable, but they aren't anywhere near as misleading as trying to attach a single "megapixel" rating to lenses.
The other reason stating "this lens resolves 6MP" is meaningless is that the important thing in determining how you images will look is not the lens MTF itself, but the system MTF. The system MTF is the product of MTFs of each part, the lens the filter stack and the sensor (and image processing to an extent). Because it's a mathematical product (a lens delivering 80% contrast combined with an AA filter that delivers 95% contrast results in 76% contrast (0.8 x 0.95 x 100)) you can improve the system MTF by improving the MTF of any component in the system. Hence you "6MP" lens will give you more resolution on a 24MP body than on a 6MP body.
 
It's exactly this thinking that leads people to declare that there's no reason to have a 50MP sensor as there are no 50MP lenses in existence. Even the kit lens in your example produces some contrast in the centre of the image at 50MP.

F mount lenses with their design for a longer flange distance means they're pretty much adaptable to anything, including EF mount.

​I think it's handy - not 'huge'. 
I've shot a lot of night stuff on Alexa, even while owning an A7s. It's super handy to have a little camera that has superb ISO performance and allows you to steal shots or whatever. Yes, it's freedom etc etc.
But I've never lit a night shoot, then had my crew mount a lens on an Alexa and looked at it and thought 'man, I wish I was shooting this on my A7s' nor have I ever thought 'I reckon if I didn't light this and just used my A7s at 12500 ISO, it would look equally as good'.
I love my A7s. But if someone said to me 'would you rather shoot A7s and never be allowed to use lights, or shoot with something else and use as many lights as you want' I am going to pick lights, every time. Put your time and effort (and money) into lighting your scenes - or pushing your Producers to get you some lights. It will make a much bigger difference to the way your images look.

​Production monitors didn't use Plasma because you can't get smaller than 42", can't display larger than an 8-bit color space, and must use dithering to produce proper tonal variations. Many plasma panel image tests have shown models that are almost 100% Rec709 accurate, so I'm not sure where you're coming from here.

I'm incredibly excited for the dawn of affordable OLED, even if they don't render motion as well as plasma. Perfect viewing angles, perfect uniformity, perfect blacks, excellent color accuracy.
 
 
 

No surprise really, if they offer 4K on 5DIV the C100 MK II will loss a lot more potential customers.. it's PROFIT MARGIN first for Canon nowadays.

The Canon Cinema line is the worst thing to happen to the Canon brand imo. They've stopped all progress in regards to image quality on the video side of things with their dslr's based on the underwhelming specs of their more expensive "C" cameras that they don't want to best.
What Canon should do is offer legit pro cameras with high frame rates and raw recording ability with all the bells and whistles for top dollar. Maybe a camera that actually commands its price. 
DSLR's should be B and C cameras to these high end "Cinema" cameras that can offer similar image quality at the standard 24p and 30p frame rates, that way people can actually afford to buy multiple cameras. 
The XC10 is the most bizarre, over-priced camera that's really unbelievable Canon would even produce such a product. With releases like this I've lost pretty much all hope but I wish they would deliver stunning 4K video quality in the next 5D4 update. I'm not holding my breath... 

Despite Barney's protests, I'm certain there's some kind of pressure somewhere. Either that or the Canon name has a lot more cachet than I thought!

​Are we still beating this dead horse? It's the 21st century, no need to stick with 19th century methods of doing things.

It seems obvious Canon wants to protect it's higher end products, but get real Canon. $2500 gets you slow fixed glass, and a 1" sensor? As pointed out, Canon would not even have a higher end video line if it were not for the success of the 5D series. I remember the Canon XL-1, awesome for the money at the time, sold like crazy. What happened Canon?  Samsung should put together a rig with a super 35 sensor, internal/external recording with 422 10 bit codec, XLR connectors, internal 4K (like NX-1) and higher bitrate recording options. They have no higher end to worry about cannibalizing. Sell it for 5K or less, and they would OWN the enthusiast market. 

This is a rehersal of the norwegian entry in Europe's biggest song competition (ESC) where every country once a year submit a contestant to represent their country. Last years winner host the following year. The show is seen live on tv throughout europe by approx 600 million people and is one of the biggest tv-shows here. Audience watching the show live in the hall is about 20 000 people. After every country's had their go, each country vote and submit their countrys points and its all added up to decleare the winner. In 1974 Abba won with Waterloo so this contest have rocketed some carriers. My country Norway has won a couple of times and in putting the show on takes a lot of combined efforts. Your observations regarding tv vs audience is true btw. Its all done for tv, however, being there is quite fin and spectacular. Especially for us interested in the technique and such. Its a massive machinery. 

Andrew, I don't really get this issue and all this talk about nanny states and mollycoddling and self-emasculation and the triumph of cowardice over creativity.
yes, you're coming around to the fact that what Clarkson did was unacceptable, but you still seem to think that Clarkson was singled out for something since Clooney or whoever is still working. why do you think Clarkson is being singled out?
with all the ranting, it comes off as slightly unhinged Fox News-esque raging at Political Correctness, which in its essence amounts to "think before you speak". there is no "dogmatic liberal elite" coming for the rights of white men over the age of 30 to say what they want about blacks, women, the French, and automobiles. your concern for the crew seems disingenuous since your biggest bone is approximately "why can't we make the jokes my grandfather used to make?"

​Yes, the law requires nothing.  Yes, it's a matter for the employer.  But does it (harm) have nothing "to do with Clarkson having ... alcohol related emotional breakdown"?
The only people who would find the BBC's actions completely wrong are those who have never employed others, or been employed in a larger organization for which everyone depend on to put a roof over their head, food in their mouth, send the kids to school (not to mention they want people to focus on THEIR work, not some guys' boorish behavior).  It is a real risk that if they kept him on and he ran someone over while drunk most managers would lose their jobs and many people lose their jobs--not to mention the person he killed.  It's hard to fix things behind closed doors when the other person is harming others in front of a world-wide audience.
Maybe BBC management over-reacted, maybe they didn't.  We'll never know.  TV is a collaborative effort.  It is never all about one person.  Why should he risk everyone's happiness on one man's alcoholic problem which is getting worse, not better?
My 2-cents is they tried as hard as they can to keep the show going.  At some point, you have to draw a line.  How to you reign in a guy who has all the money he wants.  Can get laid by just showing up to the local bar.  Has people who want to be around him everywhere?  Can get invited to the best parties?   
What you want to recognize is this is NO victory for BBC management.  This is a failure for all concerned.