fuzzynormal

I would go for Magic Bullet Looks !
More expensive but more versatile in my opinion.
It's an all-in-one tool, you will have more fun to play with it, it's perfect to start.
And there are a lot of tutorials on Youtube about how-to-use, like this one : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z78NI-nL4o0
What you can do with Film Convert or Color Finale, you can do it with Magic Bullet Looks.
Also in Magic Bullet Looks you have the scopes, and it can be really helpful

Did this market research also say what percentage of still camera sales accounted for video purchases? Because all this doomsaying about how not adapting stills cameras for better video production will ruin companies is getting rather tiresome.

​Well, all I'm saying is regulation exists or not because of political clout.  Lots of things influence that clout.  Money, words, symbols, media metaphors, whatever.  FWIW, I personally don't mind if drones get regulated.  
Let's also consider this:  someone's going to die today because alcohol is a legal drug.  Another person is going to die today because of a legally permissive gun culture.   I'm not saying the way American govermnment works is right or wrong, just how I think it is. 
If you believe that you can organize a group of drone operators to influence, positively, future legislation then go for it.  That is how it's supposed to work, but I'm certainly more cynical and believe that would, realistically, be a lost cause for the reason stated above.

​Yup.  Although I hear the Lens Turbo II is a better bet.  I don't know, just the opines I've seen on the 'tubes.  
Is the quality the same?  Maybe.  I think they're probably all made by the same orphanage/factory in Zhōngnán.

​No, it's just a 33" "silk" translucent umbrella.  Like so:

Super simple.  4pm-ish sunlight key  through a silk umbrella.  No fill.

i hope drones get banned altogether.  will save us seeing any more tacky wannabe aerial footage.
 

Depends on what you want to do.  I wouldn't recommend necessarily making a wildly dynamic food video "just because."  If it fits what you want to do or are hired to do, sure... but there's something to be said in making a video that's a bit more timeless and classic too.
I don't do extreme food cooking like I'm base jumping of El Capitan, so that commercial looks a bit silly to me personally.

As an American I can tell you we fret about many trivial things and are lax regarding the profound, but there are indeed idiots that fly these things without much consideration.  They are dangerous in a way, but I feel this is more newsworthy as an item of media paranoia than a serious peril to anything.
Keep in mind this sort of thing is a way for politicians to "get tough" on a perceived ambitious threat --that, oh by the way, just so happens to be an industry that doesn't have any lobbyist dollars to tell them otherwise...or any type of social traction.  It's a soft target.  That's the pragmatic political reason these quads are destined to be regulated drastically.
If for some reason the nomenclature for these things was "Remote Controlled Model Helicopters" or "RCMH's" rather than the loaded word "Drones" I doubt this would even be much of a public interest story, to be honest.  

As an American I can tell you we fret about many trivial things and are lax regarding the profound, but there are indeed idiots that fly these things without much consideration.  They are dangerous in a way, but I feel this is more newsworthy as an item of media paranoia than a serious peril to anything.
Keep in mind this sort of thing is a way for politicians to "get tough" on a perceived ambitious threat --that, oh by the way, just so happens to be an industry that doesn't have any lobbyist dollars to tell them otherwise...or any type of social traction.  It's a soft target.  That's the pragmatic political reason these quads are destined to be regulated drastically.
If for some reason the nomenclature for these things was "Remote Controlled Model Helicopters" or "RCMH's" rather than the loaded word "Drones" I doubt this would even be much of a public interest story, to be honest.  

As an American I can tell you we fret about many trivial things and are lax regarding the profound, but there are indeed idiots that fly these things without much consideration.  They are dangerous in a way, but I feel this is more newsworthy as an item of media paranoia than a serious peril to anything.
Keep in mind this sort of thing is a way for politicians to "get tough" on a perceived ambitious threat --that, oh by the way, just so happens to be an industry that doesn't have any lobbyist dollars to tell them otherwise...or any type of social traction.  It's a soft target.  That's the pragmatic political reason these quads are destined to be regulated drastically.
If for some reason the nomenclature for these things was "Remote Controlled Model Helicopters" or "RCMH's" rather than the loaded word "Drones" I doubt this would even be much of a public interest story, to be honest.  

So I'm kind of believing that we've hit, for all practical purposes, a kind of pinnacle of digital IQ in motion pictures.* 
This does NOT mean that cameras stop improving, but I'm implying that from now onward if "you" (a typically casual end-user consumer) buy a newly released camera, you're gonna have imaging that will look great for the rest of your life.  Yes, in the future the DR will be wider and resolution will probably be 16+k plus, but even so, watching an image on a 80" monitor from 10 feet away will kinda look similar to 4K, even good 1080, for that matter.
4 decades ago, great motion picture  IQ wasn't a consumer possibility.  8mm film stuff shot then looks like it was shot then.  3 decades ago consumers were shooting NTSC video on crappy CCD's.  That stuff is dated.  It bears the mark of the 1980's.  However, if you go film a scenic of, say, Florence this afternoon then it's still gonna look great 4 decades from now and onward, which is kinda cool --and sad in a way.
The advance of technology is wonderful, I'm just musing on what's lost when we gain.  
For instance, personally, I have a tendency to make my pristine footage look retro through lens choices and post-production.  I feel images need some sorts of "flaws" to feel authentic.  I grew up in a darkroom, so I nurture that aesthetic nostalgia in my images.  And, of course, many people love instagramming their stills, so there's still a strong desire to 'analog' the 'digital.'  Could this tendency be an attempt to psychologically grasp a past that's easier to comprehend rather than the future that is rushing to us non-stop?  
Anyway, that's all part of the mix too.
This sort of stuff, maybe it matters more to us older folks that have this visual legacy that bears the mark of technological evolution.  I suspect new kids aren't hung up on this sort of thing, they just go do stuff, and they get to do it without an obvious technological time-stamp.
Any thoughts?
* talking' 'bout 2d imaging. 3d and holograms will surely come along somehow, but that's a different story.

So I'm kind of believing that we've hit, for all practical purposes, a kind of pinnacle of digital IQ in motion pictures.* 
This does NOT mean that cameras stop improving, but I'm implying that from now onward if "you" (a typically casual end-user consumer) buy a newly released camera, you're gonna have imaging that will look great for the rest of your life.  Yes, in the future the DR will be wider and resolution will probably be 16+k plus, but even so, watching an image on a 80" monitor from 10 feet away will kinda look similar to 4K, even good 1080, for that matter.
4 decades ago, great motion picture  IQ wasn't a consumer possibility.  8mm film stuff shot then looks like it was shot then.  3 decades ago consumers were shooting NTSC video on crappy CCD's.  That stuff is dated.  It bears the mark of the 1980's.  However, if you go film a scenic of, say, Florence this afternoon then it's still gonna look great 4 decades from now and onward, which is kinda cool --and sad in a way.
The advance of technology is wonderful, I'm just musing on what's lost when we gain.  
For instance, personally, I have a tendency to make my pristine footage look retro through lens choices and post-production.  I feel images need some sorts of "flaws" to feel authentic.  I grew up in a darkroom, so I nurture that aesthetic nostalgia in my images.  And, of course, many people love instagramming their stills, so there's still a strong desire to 'analog' the 'digital.'  Could this tendency be an attempt to psychologically grasp a past that's easier to comprehend rather than the future that is rushing to us non-stop?  
Anyway, that's all part of the mix too.
This sort of stuff, maybe it matters more to us older folks that have this visual legacy that bears the mark of technological evolution.  I suspect new kids aren't hung up on this sort of thing, they just go do stuff, and they get to do it without an obvious technological time-stamp.
Any thoughts?
* talking' 'bout 2d imaging. 3d and holograms will surely come along somehow, but that's a different story.

So I'm kind of believing that we've hit, for all practical purposes, a kind of pinnacle of digital IQ in motion pictures.* 
This does NOT mean that cameras stop improving, but I'm implying that from now onward if "you" (a typically casual end-user consumer) buy a newly released camera, you're gonna have imaging that will look great for the rest of your life.  Yes, in the future the DR will be wider and resolution will probably be 16+k plus, but even so, watching an image on a 80" monitor from 10 feet away will kinda look similar to 4K, even good 1080, for that matter.
4 decades ago, great motion picture  IQ wasn't a consumer possibility.  8mm film stuff shot then looks like it was shot then.  3 decades ago consumers were shooting NTSC video on crappy CCD's.  That stuff is dated.  It bears the mark of the 1980's.  However, if you go film a scenic of, say, Florence this afternoon then it's still gonna look great 4 decades from now and onward, which is kinda cool --and sad in a way.
The advance of technology is wonderful, I'm just musing on what's lost when we gain.  
For instance, personally, I have a tendency to make my pristine footage look retro through lens choices and post-production.  I feel images need some sorts of "flaws" to feel authentic.  I grew up in a darkroom, so I nurture that aesthetic nostalgia in my images.  And, of course, many people love instagramming their stills, so there's still a strong desire to 'analog' the 'digital.'  Could this tendency be an attempt to psychologically grasp a past that's easier to comprehend rather than the future that is rushing to us non-stop?  
Anyway, that's all part of the mix too.
This sort of stuff, maybe it matters more to us older folks that have this visual legacy that bears the mark of technological evolution.  I suspect new kids aren't hung up on this sort of thing, they just go do stuff, and they get to do it without an obvious technological time-stamp.
Any thoughts?
* talking' 'bout 2d imaging. 3d and holograms will surely come along somehow, but that's a different story.

​To hell with you guys.  I'm going to shoot an entire film in real time, with 28 different scenes, and in one take --from the top of the empire state building.  http://gearburn.com/2012/06/the-aware-2-worlds-smallest-and-fastest-gigapixel-camera/

​To hell with you guys.  I'm going to shoot an entire film in real time, with 28 different scenes, and in one take --from the top of the empire state building.  http://gearburn.com/2012/06/the-aware-2-worlds-smallest-and-fastest-gigapixel-camera/

​This is very true.  You have to be discriminating to discern it, but that can also be very telling and informative; always lots of scuttlebutt comments that have bad footage=bad camera, however.  (and yes I just used the word scuttlebutt) 

​I do entire shoots with 5-axis.  I love it; works for me.  
I agree with your opinion that stabilization can look very artificial when the camera is moving.  It's a tool on my EM5II that works very well for grabbing static shots without a tripod (which I do often) and for mimicking a short slider shot...but you have to practice at it, much like using a glide-cam type rig.
For much of the corporate crap I do, I prefer a quiet lens.  For those shoots I'm trying to keep what I do as neutral and transparent as possible.  I don't want to call attention to my shooting and/or editing.  I put their stories at the forefront and the production style is conservative.
I also concur with your assertion, Implement the 5-axis technology in an intelligent pragmatic way and it's a wonderful thing.  
We all should keep in mind that a lot of shooters you see on the youtubes haven't a clue or are just messing around with testing, (5 minutes of walking though as park handheld?  Who would use that in an edit anyway?) so judging by their work is a mistake. 
And let's be honest, a lot of prosumer enthusiasts can also be talent-limited, assuming that IS or OIS is some sort of panacea that'll make their footage wonderful. Um, no.  If you stink as a shooter in general, your stabilized footage will do the same. (those Canadian guys from that camera store come to mind.  They're gear geeks and can tell you the ins and outs of a camera's functionality, yes, but they're not the best shooters and the footage always looks subpar to what a particular camera can do.)  
Finally, don't forget, if your camera has 5-axis stabilization, you can always turn it off too. 

​There's no singular answer.  They're all good.  It comes down to what kind of footage/style you're trying to get.  If you can articulate that, then you can get some really good advice here.
(Not from me though, but from other folks that seriously analyze the IQ stuff.  I tend to believe it's how you use a camera, not the gear itself.  This opinion of mine is in the minority so take what I say with a grain of salt.) 
At any rate, I tend to believe if you can't articulate in detail what you're trying to do, then the answer can seriously be: "get anything." This would be because you're not likely not going to be doing much considered or sophisticated shooting anyway.  That being the case, just about any new camera will allow you to grab some pretty great shots.
Except Fuji.  Don't buy Fuji for video.  Even that IQ is too lousy for me.

​There's no singular answer.  They're all good.  It comes down to what kind of footage/style you're trying to get.  If you can articulate that, then you can get some really good advice here.
(Not from me though, but from other folks that seriously analyze the IQ stuff.  I tend to believe it's how you use a camera, not the gear itself.  This opinion of mine is in the minority so take what I say with a grain of salt.) 
At any rate, I tend to believe if you can't articulate in detail what you're trying to do, then the answer can seriously be: "get anything." This would be because you're not likely not going to be doing much considered or sophisticated shooting anyway.  That being the case, just about any new camera will allow you to grab some pretty great shots.
Except Fuji.  Don't buy Fuji for video.  Even that IQ is too lousy for me.

​FWIW, the EM5II is nice and all, but it's not going to give you the same functionality as a gimbal.  I just use it for short shots kuz that's what I do most of the time.  Short PR edits. But, if you wanted to do a looooong tracking shot following a character around and needed the camera to transition through some pretty aggressive moves and still keep things smooth, the internal 5-axis on-a-sensor isn't going to like that.  I think you'd see some significant warping.  
You'd definitely want a more professional tool/gimbal in that case.  Also, the EM5II is pretty decent IQ, but it's certainly inferior to a lot of other stuff on the <$1K market.
Don't want to hijack the thread here, it's all just food for thought.  Since it worked for me, maybe it would work for you.  Depends.  If you want to see a lot of words agonizing over the EM5II, this is where you should go:

Here's some stabilized footage I shot a few days back for a goofy corporate gig.  Might give you an idea how certain moves and some very basic shots can be enhanced with the technology:
 
 

Here's some stabilized footage I shot a few days back for a goofy corporate gig.  Might give you an idea how certain moves and some very basic shots can be enhanced with the technology:
 
 

I recommend you put completely 100% out of your head any thoughts about how "future proof" your ability to use your camera in 5 years will be. 

We're moving at a far too fast a pace for that to matter. And cameras are far too cheap for that to matter. 
 Instead pick what is right for you right now. (or perhaps in the next 6 months, or 12 months, but don't be looking any further out than that)
Look at a couple of examples:

Sony PMW-F3 is a camera that I just purchased last week for not much more than a grand, yet less than five years ago this camera cost US$20,000! (when you factor in the s-log upgrade) This was one of the hottest cameras back then, and was very very pricey.

Now consider the Panasonic GH2, also only less than 5 years old, and also was for its time the hottest camera around and cost a not terribly dissimilar amount to what a GH4/NX1 costs today. How much do they go for now? Only a couple of hundred bucks or so.

Conclusion: in 5 years time you'll be able to pick up the (former) hottest tech for pennies on the dollar, and also you'll be able to affordably buy new tech which is leaps and bounds ahead of it.

​I do entire shoots with 5-axis.  I love it; works for me.  
I agree with your opinion that stabilization can look very artificial when the camera is moving.  It's a tool on my EM5II that works very well for grabbing static shots without a tripod (which I do often) and for mimicking a short slider shot...but you have to practice at it, much like using a glide-cam type rig.
For much of the corporate crap I do, I prefer a quiet lens.  For those shoots I'm trying to keep what I do as neutral and transparent as possible.  I don't want to call attention to my shooting and/or editing.  I put their stories at the forefront and the production style is conservative.
I also concur with your assertion, Implement the 5-axis technology in an intelligent pragmatic way and it's a wonderful thing.  
We all should keep in mind that a lot of shooters you see on the youtubes haven't a clue or are just messing around with testing, (5 minutes of walking though as park handheld?  Who would use that in an edit anyway?) so judging by their work is a mistake. 
And let's be honest, a lot of prosumer enthusiasts can also be talent-limited, assuming that IS or OIS is some sort of panacea that'll make their footage wonderful. Um, no.  If you stink as a shooter in general, your stabilized footage will do the same. (those Canadian guys from that camera store come to mind.  They're gear geeks and can tell you the ins and outs of a camera's functionality, yes, but they're not the best shooters and the footage always looks subpar to what a particular camera can do.)  
Finally, don't forget, if your camera has 5-axis stabilization, you can always turn it off too.