Quirky

No offense intended, Ebrahim, but... duh. 

Are you still hovering around in the same hall? Have you done the interview already?
If you haven't, and can can have a longer interview, it would be interesting to know a bit more about the new sensor, for example.
 
So it's backside illuminated and has no low pass filter whatsoever (right?), but how about the rest of the sensor stack? How thick is the glass + IR filter in the front of the sensor? Since the flange distance is longer than, say, the Leica M mount, do they use any micro lenses in the front of the sensor?
(a bit nerdy line of questions, I know, but it's relevant and interesting in the sense of adapting SLR lenses to the body, and just to satisfy our curiosity)
 
They also claim it can read the whole 7K sensor without pixel binning or line skipping up to 30fps, so is there any heat-related restrictions to the length of a recording? It would also be quite interesting to know about how the camera delivers 1080p 25/30fps, and even though they won't comment about it, it would be interesting to know how does it look like, in terms of moire and aliasing.
Can you convert the 4K footage into 1080p @10-bit 422, á la GH4?
 
I'm sure you'll come up with plenty of other interesting tidbits to ask, as we're all sort of positively surprised by this new kid in the block.

The forum side of things looks familiar enough to the old one, and no doubt the eyes will get used to the new look in no time.
 
But on the blog side the new look is a clear step backwards. The reversed white text on black background is quite straining for the eyes. Therefore without the Reader button in the Safari browser, the blog posts would remain unread by many people, including me. At least on the regular computer and screen. I do wish the layout of the blog was the same black text on white background as it was until yesterday, and as it is over here.
 
That's my only negative feedback. The reversed layout is not just a matter of taste, it's quite a practical issue for many. 

The F5 shoots 2k internally. I shot on it yesterday at 100fps @ 2k. I regularly shoot Alexa @ 2k.
I shoot 4k/5k on RED because I don't want to window my sensor.
The commercial yesterday was for cinema release. I have no issue not shooting 4k. There are times when it is helpful, but it is rare that it is necessary, and also rare that you would shoot <4k simply because you couldn't afford a 4k camera - there's the 4K Blackmagic camera ready for you at 1/3rd the price, if that's the only thing you need. If 4k was the only thing people were worried about, no-one would have bought the F5 in favour of the Blackmagic Production Cam.
 
The F55 contains other hardware improvements, which would be the main deciding factor for anyone deciding between the two - the global shutter, sensor circuitry, improved colour gamut etc.
There's no way that F55 owners bought that camera over the F5 purely for 4k. 4k may have been one of the deciding factors in some cases, but Scarlets shoot 4k for the same price as an F5. So there are few circumstances where the price of an F55 is justified over a Scarlet purely for 4k capture. I think you'd find most F55 owners bought the camera based on more than just the ability to shoot 4k internally (especially considering you can shoot 4k raw with the addition of the external recorder - which is <1/2 the price difference between F5 and F55; if you really wanted 4k, just grab the recorder).

 
A good majority of feature films are still released in 2k. If the quality of your Cinematography is based purely on the resolution of the camera you're shooting on, I've got bad news for you.

 
That's exactly what Scarlets are. The difference being the release cycle. Sony's potential failing was releasing both cameras at the same time. With RED, the Epic was out and everyone saw the kinds of things it could do. Then, the Scarlet was released - an 'affordable epic' if you may.
With Sony, releasing both at the same time meant that the F55 became an 'expensive F5' rather than the other way around (a la RED).
Realistically, at least the F55 has improved colour, global shutter etc. to somewhat warrant the price difference.
The difference between the Epic and Scarlet is 4k @ up to 48fps vs 5k @ up to 120fps, respectively. That's really it. We're not even talking 2k vs 4k - it's 4k vs 5k for the ~$15,000+ price difference.
 
If you're happy shooting XAVC vs shooting ProRes and DNxHD, then be my guest. Personally, I'd take ProRes 2k over XAVC 4k any day (the Alexa only shoots 2k ProRes internally, btw), and I'd be surprised if there were many rental houses that would forego the ability to shoot ProRes/DNxHD to keep the 4k internal option (that you can't even playback). Also, it's rare for any rental house to send out 'hacked' cameras - and regardless of what this actually is, the fact that it may void a warranty will be enough for the majority of the rental houses to stay right away from it.
 
 
 This is exactly right. The only time you should invest in a camera is if you have enough work lined up in the following 18 months to be able to pay it off (and that you know you're going to be able to book your camera on). After that, it's not worth it.
 
This is a dangerous comment. It entirely depends on your market. In some markets, those who early-adopted the Alexa have a camera that will still rent strong. In other markets, those who early adopted the Alexa went from renting their cameras out at top-dollar, to marking them down 30-40% to compete with the Alexa XT, Alexa Studio, Alexa Plus etc. rentals.

 
 Everyone did know that. That being said, the F5 and F55 do have minor hardware differences, but Sony never even pretended that the hardware was wildly different. Anyone who wasn't aware that the ability to shoot 4k internally on the F5 was simply a matter of software limitation hasn't hung around high-end cameras enough. The Alexa's high-speed license is a 37kb encrypted zip file that you pay ~$4,000 for and put on an SD card. It's purely software. But that's how these companies work. There's not one that doesn't work in a similar way. Really the only difference here is that Sony hasn't put as much effort into encrypting that part of the software. Arri's Amira pricing structure is practically identical as well, the only difference being that they're all called an Amira. Even Blackmagic pulled the same card with the Cinema Cam and Production Cam.
 

And yet, Canon has sold so many C300s. You forget that SLRs have always been primarily about photography. Canon has always had a pro video line. It makes absolutely zero sense to cannabalize their pro video line in order to sell cheap, feature-rich SLRs. People are still buying 7Ds, they're still buying Rebels, they're still buying 5Ds. And they're buying C300s.

Digital video cameras have had wild markups based on minor hardware and software difference for as long as I can remember.

No comment on the whether or not you should post a trailer here, because I'm not a host in this forum.
You're probably right about the poor visibility in that place, but I think the Screening Room is a nice idea in general. I think it just needs a bit more advertising. Besides, a trailer posted here may get more visibility here at first, but only for a short while. After which it will start sinking into oblivion fast, whereas in the Screening Room it'll stay relevant longer.
 
In other words, the simple solution to the eyeball dilemma would be more effort from both the administrators/hosts and the users in this forum to make the Screening Room more popular. Talk about it, move unrelated clips to it, maybe even link to clips inside it, compose songs about it and so on, so that people will notice its existence and start flocking there more often, and eventually automatically. 
Well, just my 2c.

Really? 
 
His piece, especially the first half of it makes no logic sense. It makes him sound like yet another narrow-sighted gadget nerd. I agree with him about two pretty obvious things, though, that the piece is only his opinion, and that the A7s and himself aren't a good match. 
 
That's not the fault of the camera, though. It's merely tells us that the A7s is absolutely the wrong camera for him and for the likes of him. Which is fine, no camera is perfect, no camera can be a perfect fit for everyone, and there are plenty of other nice cameras around. 
 
 
 
I can't help feeling that it's a matter of how you read the stories, and what your own inner wiring diagram looks like. He may or may not be in a honeymoon stage, but that's irrelevant. It's quite possible that Part 2 will have a different tone, but the relevant part about that is why and how.
 
If you read his entire piece with a pragmatic (enough) mindset, it was quite informative. The message that comes through is that in the 'right' (capable) hands the A7s is indeed capable of delivering fine and pleasant results, even pleasantly 'cinematic' even under lower light.
But that needs some work, as always, including getting familiar with the features of the camera and understanding how it works. And also trying to work around the quirks of the camera. And doing the necessary work both during shooting and after it. Which should be common practise with any camera, shouldn't it. 
 
You can create pretty pleasant looking footage with some other cameras, too, if you know what you're doing, but that's not the answer people are looking for, is it? 
 
I can't help but feeling that one of the issues people have with Andrew's story is that they read his piece with a typical enginerdy, I/O, either-or kind of mindset, which only want to see product X being either the best or crap, either better or worse than product Y, because choosing between X and Y will dictate the fate of one's cinematography. Automagically with a press of a button, of course.
 
Then, the moment they see Andrew considering the A7s being perhaps nicer a tool than the 5D3, or even the GH4 in certain areas, that's all they choose to see, and then they get blinded by that throughout the rest of the story. 
I also can't help but feeling that what peeks out of some of the comments is that questioning the authority of the Holy 5D3, that's blasphemy!  :)
 
But you shouldn't really worry, because the A7s is not likely to become a big mainstream hit. Mostly because it's not a Canikon, and because it "only" has 12 megapixels. No self-respecting pixel peeper is going to openly admit that he owns a FF camera with less than 36 megapixels. 
 
BTW, there is no such thing as "5D3 RAW." The RAW part is a 3rd party hack, not provided, authorised or endorsed by Canon. A regular 5D3 is another product. If you wish to participate in a length-peeing contest, doping your instrument won't take you to the podium. It only takes you on the top of the dunghill.
Just saying.  ;)

In order to make sensible lens suggestions, one should first have an idea about what you're planning to do with the lens. You say you'd like to get a decent wideangle lens with a limited budget, and two of the lenses you're listing are kit zoom lenses, one with a FT and one with a Nikon mount. So that brings up the question what is it that you wish to accomplish with those lenses? Are you going to shoot stills or video, or both? Why not going for primes?
 
From those lenses he only one that makes sense is the 14mm Panasonic. IMO, anyway. As for using the Speedbooster made for BMCC with GH4. I think you'd be wasting your money on Nikon mount lenses with that particular adapter. I'd get a proper mFT one instead, or use native mFT lenses. They'd be much comfier to use with the GH4, too.
 
I've seen other mFT primes, like a new Olympus 2.8/17mm for slightly under 100€, and no doubt you'd find other and better used ones for about the same money. Good luck with the hunt.

That's funny, I thought the takeaway was "don't try to make cool experimental imagery if your audience consists of pedantic internet pixel peepers".

I haven't heard of an iMac where you cannot change RAM yourself. A one may exist, and I may have not noticed it, but the general rule of thumb is that you can change at least RAM yourself within minutes, and in some cases HDD, too. The MacBook Air is of course an exception, and in some cases, like with the latest mini, changing the HDD is a bit tricky. Doable, but tricky.
 
My suggestion would be just to buy a stock iMac which you can afford with some change, then buy a matching pair of 3rd party RAM. Not that hard to find. Just make sure you always use a matching pair of RAM modules, if both banks are in use. 
That will save you enough money to buy an external HDD. Or, go and buy a fast, and the biggest one you can afford. You know, for your FCPX projects, photos and stuff. That way the size of the internal HDD of the iMac is not that critical. 
That's about it. 
 
 
If I was the owner of this forum, I would make sure not to touch that particular topic. Not that there's anything wrong in asking or discussing the topic, but don't be surprised if the practical suggestions won't come from the forum owners or even moderators. Instructing where and how to abuse a software license might be on the hazy side of legally and morally smart things to do. Sure it's harmless to the normal punters, but for forum supervisors it's another matter. Potentially, at least.
 
I'd say a hackintosh may be an ego booster or a political statement of a sort for some computer nerds, but for any practical use and for work it wouldn't be worth the hassle. Just get the real thing, new or used, and then max out the memory yourself. 

If this were an A7S video you would say something about colors or skin tones being off :) But seriously, nice video even though the quality of the grades was a bit uneven. 70% of it looks really nice, the other 30% has this green cast, especially on people's skin.

What that article shows is that the Economist doesn't know much about cameras, and their view is a typical US-centric at that, borrowed from some other site or publication, and edited slightly. Looks like typical copy-paste journalism in action, or just another meaningless filler story. 
Next story, please.
 
 
That sentence has a strange logic. It's a bit like saying that if, for example, you don't buy the official 911 story, you must also be a 1969 moon landing and a holocaust denier, UFO nutter, and a rabid home grown terrorist nut job. And so on. Or that if you don't write about the Fisker Karma, Chrysler Volt or whatever geeky car designed by some South African tycoon, you can't know anything about motorcycles, either.
 
I believe the Economist do know a thing or two about a number of issues, but mirrorless cameras just aren't one of them. Which is hardly surprising.

If people are buying a product based on a single person's perspective and then pissed after the original reviewer changed their mind thus infuriating the buyer of the said product, the buyer should see mental help ASAP. 
 
 
I enjoying asking questions, getting responses, and taking a long time to decide.  But if I went out and bought an a7s based on Andrew's video and commentary alongside whatever Philip Bloom says, and realize my 5d3 was a better choice for me due to aesthetics in the video I would not be pissed at them and use it as a learning experience.
 
Some of you give too much credit to individuals, it is scary.  Then again this is how masses follow religion :)

Keep on working out, surely you'll find other benefits eventually. That's the whole point of creative benefits, isn't it. Your imagination, skills, good timing and a bit of luck together with the given tools at your disposal will create that magic serendipity. The creative benefits are up to you. 
The point being, no one can explain "creative benefits" to you exhaustively, because creativity is subjective. People can explain the technical benefits of low light performance, which you have already figured out, and the rest is up to you. It's up to you to make something cool of it.
 
 
 
I'm pretty sure Mr. Bloom was merely trying to make a point with that video clip, not cinematic art or technical perfection. As such the clip works just fine, but obviously it's not intended for extremely pedantic viewing. Or for the most pedantic of viewers, ftm. 
 
Now we (well, most of us, anyway) have established that one can get shots in pretty low light with that camera. It's up to each of us to make something useful and good looking with that feature. If you have no use for that feature, feel free to ignore it, or the whole camera.

Keep on working out, surely you'll find other benefits eventually. That's the whole point of creative benefits, isn't it. Your imagination, skills, good timing and a bit of luck together with the given tools at your disposal will create that magic serendipity. The creative benefits are up to you. 
The point being, no one can explain "creative benefits" to you exhaustively, because creativity is subjective. People can explain the technical benefits of low light performance, which you have already figured out, and the rest is up to you. It's up to you to make something cool of it.
 
 
 
I'm pretty sure Mr. Bloom was merely trying to make a point with that video clip, not cinematic art or technical perfection. As such the clip works just fine, but obviously it's not intended for extremely pedantic viewing. Or for the most pedantic of viewers, ftm. 
 
Now we (well, most of us, anyway) have established that one can get shots in pretty low light with that camera. It's up to each of us to make something useful and good looking with that feature. If you have no use for that feature, feel free to ignore it, or the whole camera.

I wonder how long, or how many camera generations still do we have to wait until most cameras sold for video have a global shutter or something else to eliminate the rolling shutter issue. One could think a thing like that would be a high priority, but apparently it isn't, or it is very hard to battle. 
Another thing I sometimes wonder is how hard could it be to come up with a S35-sized CCD sensor camera with a reasonable price tag. Like a D35, for example. That would be something, wouldn't it, although it might not have a reasonable price tag.
 
 
Please remember to share your experiences with the other wannabe D16 shooters here when you get to that.

Well, what did you expect? After all, it's a full frame CMOS sensor camera. Of course it'll show some, especially if you wiggle it. Even APS-C and smaller size CMOS cameras have some rolling shutter issues. Some more, some less, but they all have some. I don't think expecting no rolling shutter from a FF CMOS (4K) sensor camera is entirely realistic, so far. Better to try finding ways to work around the problem.
 
 
You might want to go for either a Digital Bolex (S16 CCD) or Blackmagic Production Camera (S35 CMOS with slap-on global shutter), then. I'd love to have either one, (or both:), too, but can't afford either one right now. Hopefully in the not too distant future I'll have one.

Slog2
 

I think the way you record your scene depends on many things, the mood and style of your production, and what you wish to accomplish, and of course how you're shooting the scene(s).
 
If it is possible in any way, I'd record both characters separately either with a 'shotgun' or a lavalier, and then worry about the final soundtrack when editing. As a general rule of thumb, always try to get as good an audio track as you can. That's where a small recorder like the H1 or two come handy.
 
I'd say that forget about the scientific thingies and worry more about catching good audio of all your talents, experiment, use your ears and watch movies and TV documentaries for inspiration and reference. 
I'm not a seasoned expert but that's what I did and do. When we have limited resources to use, we sometimes need to improvise and make do with less. But that's where the inexpensive tools like the H1, a couple of stands, flash brackets and the Røde Videomic come handy.
 
 
 
You need only one dead cat to cover the microphone part of the H1. Covering the body with one doesn't help at all. Don't put the H1 in the suspender, get a mic like the Videomic Pro and plug that into the input of the H1.
 
In other words, use the H1 as a recorder, not as a microphone. Buy a cheap bracket to attach the H1 and the mic onto if necessary. If the mic has no suspender of its own, (the Videomic does), put the mic into the suspender, and attach the H1 somewhere within the reach of the microphone cable. When you've got two mics, you can plug one into the H1 and another straight into your camera. 
I hope this helps.
 
I think selling the H1 would be a mistake, because there's nothing wrong with it. It's quite a handy and compact sized tool, despite its shortcomings. Especially for its price. I use one as a field recorder with one of my mics most of the time. It is quite usable as a standalone microphone, too, when you can use it on a table tripod, for example, or on a light stand that no one is touching. It's quite handy for recording sound effects and a sound bed for your soundtrack. I also use the H1 as a USB microphone when doing hangouts online.
 
So my advice would be to keep the H1, learn how to use it, and buy a couple of microphones to accompany it. It doesn't matter which mics you end up buying, because they won't make the H1 useless. If you end up buying a better recorder at some point, you could still use the H1 as a secondary recorder, with a lavalier mic, for example. Two recorders is always better than one.

Yeah, it's just an incremental, yet clear upgrade to a DSLR. Not something a keen cinematographer would kill for in the first place.
 
As for the the question why some people might get upset, apparently it's psychology. Apparently some people are projecting their egos onto their Nikons, and/or expect a brand to conform to their will.
 
On the other hand, looks like most people in this thread are excited rather than upset. Whether they want or like the D810 or not. 
After all, any new high megapixel Nikon is a feast for the gadget geeks, a one that will keep them busy for weeks. The D810 means a new bonanza of nerdy-nam-nam, and since it's about Nikon, this thread alone is likely to get at least ten pages of it in no time, and probably a couple of other similar threads, too. That's just how the cookie crumbles. It has little to do with actually shooting/making video.
 
/snarkasm alert  ;)

About two hours ago. Along with DaVinci Resolve 11 Public Beta.

In fairness' sake, if one uses a licenced track from the Music Bed, Triple Scoop, etc, the video is not automatically going to get flagged and banned, is it. It's just a risk, because of the dodgy filtering system, which may or may not distribute false flags.
 
Other than that, so far so good, the soundtrack sounds interesting, and so does the project, so far.
 
 
 
The prices will start at 20 bucks. The price will be same for both videomakers and pedantic 'what if' people alike.  ;)
If you suspect your piece might make money later, buy a pricier, or another licence for another edit. Surely there's not much point in worrying about every possible scenario beforehand. Especially now, as he said,
 
 
So be patient.  :)
 
Meanwhile, use the policies of the aforementioned royalty free music delivery services as a general guideline. When in doubt, ask the provider for a quote, or buy a pricier license. In this case, the money is going to support independent music makers (and EOSHD:) directly. Support your indie artists, people, be it a musician, filmmaker, graphical artist, app developer or whatever. That's us supporting each other.

So... if your goal is mostly video and not stills, why not just ignore the usual suspects, and go straight to the Digital Bolex, then?
Skip the dishwasher, buy a few new dishwasher brushes and a bottle of Fairy, and save the money for the camera. 
 
I think I'd do just that, if my current dishwasher went kaputt today.  ;)
The D16 is quite a compelling option, albeit a bit pricey, too, for my current budget.

Sighhhh.... Here we go again. 
 
 
Ha. If you were truly sorry, you wouldn't have clicked the black button in the first place.  ;)
 
 
Duh You think?  :)
 
 
Surely/hopefully you do realise that apart from a handful of reviewers with pre-production units, no one has one yet, let alone has extensive shooting experience with one. Therefore the opinions and speculations shared here have social interaction value only. It would be the equivalent of a bunch of monkeys gathering together to pluck fleas off each other's fur for calming down and snack acquirement purposes. Which is perfectly okay as a purely emotional and social function, but it will tell you nothing whatsoever about the camera that hasn't even been shipped to the retail stores yet. (That is, in 14 June 2014 as I'm typing this)
 
Besides, it's not like there haven't been at least a few similar topics already, so do we really need yet another one, before both cameras are available for anyone to buy or play with? [Sarcasm alert/rhetoric question]
 
So be honest to yourself, will you.
If you really can't wait because you really need a new camera NOW for a work assignment that cannot be done with your existing gear, go and grab the GH4 or whatever is available today.
If you really can't wait because of a near fatal case of GAS, well, it's your money and your decision. No one else's.
If you are able to convince yourself that you don't have GAS, and you don't have a technical urgency to buy a new camera, well, then it should be relatively easy to wait and see the A7s in real life, right? I for one will do just that.

Surely Panasonic will note your eloquently expressed opinion. 
 
There is no ND filter. Nor is there analogue IBIS in video mode. Not in GH4, GX7 or GM1, either. For a pretty obvious reason. 
 
 
In other words, just buy a tripod and get over it. Maybe a camera, too, in case you haven't got one yet.
 
As for why there are no ND filters built in the mainstream interchangeable lens (DSLR/DSLM) camera bodies, that I'm not sure about (yet). Apparently there is an equally practical reason for that, too, though.
In case someone knows it, please feel free to chime in.

Well, looks like you got what you bargained for, the lot of you. For some reason people's egos and their cameras seem to be linked somehow.
 
But I'd like to offer another Pythonesque suggestion. You see, in case you do indeed feel necessary to let yourself slide down to exchanging personal insults, why not doing it with style? 
 
Something like this, for example;
 
"Go and boil your bottom, you son of a silly person! I'll fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of elderberries!" 
 
After all, you have to admit, that would be much more entertaining for the onlookers trying to read these topics, wouldn't it.  ;)
 
Now, go away or I shall taunt you a second time-mah.