tupp

I don't recall that. If there is a link, please post it. Thanks!

None of this is surprising. This is what you get when you have narrow minds at the top. Hope the employees are not suffering too much. It's obvious that BM's CEO has one of those typical personalities that adores "ID" -- which means that he has a pedestrian view of design and that his company puts stylishness/form over function. That attitude shows in their cameras, as almost every model has at least one major functional design blunder. We've seen this malady in other organizations, such as Apple. Stylishness can certainly sell products regardless of functionality (or regardless of the lack of functionality), but sometimes stylishness isn't enough (AJA Cion). Of course, the fact that BM's cameras are priced lower than their competition doesn't hurt their sales. There's no question that, performance-wise, BM cameras are one of the best values in the market. The BM CEO (and other manufacturers) need to realize that function should rule completely over stylishness in the professional camera market. Is the Alexa Mini stylish? ... how about the Sony F35? ... the Panavision Millennium? None of these cameras would be highlights at fashion shows, yet they all function well and can produce exquisite images. Let's say that BM offered a second version of the BMPCC6K with a non-stylish, blocky, but more streamlined form -- like the Kini-Mini. Both versions have the same capabilities, except that the second, blocky version also featured a shallow, interchangeable lens mount (with EF lenses performing just as well as on the original BMPCC6K). Both cameras have the same price. Now, which would you prefer: the original stylish BMPCC6K; or the second, blocky but more streamlined and versatile version? By the way, the BM CEO boasted that his company produced the BMCC because none of the camera companies would listen to their requests in camera features. Ironically, BM exhibits more hubris and "NIH" syndrome than any other camera company that I have encountered. They are dismissive and condescending regarding outside suggestions, and they don't take criticism very well. In regards to Canon, who would have thought they were steeped in corporate BS? /s Go to the Canon booth at a trade show and see how one of their sales people react to the mention of MagicLantern promoting their brand by unlocking amazing features in their cameras. I have heard nothing but hostility from Canon regarding ML.

Isn't the IR cut filter on the GH5 stronger than the one on the P4K?

No. It's not. He is just doing stitch/shift (he cutely calls it "twinspin"). Shots are captured as the sensor is shifted around the focal plane to cover the larger image circle of the lens -- the lens/camera is not panned. On the other hand, shooting a panorama with a normal camera involves panning the entire camera between shots -- there is no shifting of the sensor along the focal plane of the lens to capture more of the lens' image circle. I don't mean to be a downer, but there is nothing special about what this guy is doing in this test, and he makes most of the same fatal mistakes as other "format comparers" who came before him. What he calls "twinspin" has been around for awhile known by another name. He could have bought a more versatile shift/stitch bracket, instead of using that rig. The most popular line of shift/stitch brackets probably are the Vizelex/Rhino-Cam offerngs: By the way, our own @maxotics made his own shift/stitch bracket!:

Here's the similar FIMI Palm:

You might be able to adapt the Rawlite Ursa Mini OLPF for other APS-C cameras. There have been a few lens filter moire/aliasing solutions over the years. Here are the Caprock filters. Here is a filter set solution from Kristian Ponttopidan. Here is "variable" anti-aliasing filter from Kristian Ponttopidan.

There is no theoretical limit on bit depth relative to dynamic range, as they are two independent properties. On the other hand, there certainly are practical limits (and ideals) as to how much bit depth is mapped to the amplitude range (bit depth is mapped to the range in amplitude -- not to the dynamic range). Applying bit depth numbers that approximate the dynamic range has become standard practice for feasibility reasons. However, there is no connection between bit depth and dynamic range -- they are two independent properties. Bit depth is simply the number of digital intervals mapped to a amplitude range. Dynamic range is essentially the portion of the amplitude range without noise. Amplitude range is the total range of signal level (including the noise). One can have a camera with a bit depth of 3, but with a capture dynamic range of 16 stops. Likewise, one can have a camera with a bit depth of 16, but with a capture dynamic range of 3 stops. Indeed, there are many cameras with multiple, selectable bit depths, yet the capture dynamic range remains unchanged in each of those bit depths. By the way, the lack of beer functions was very disappointing.

The mythical "Sharpene" is improving! I wonder how this "AI" product compares to typical wavelet sharpening. The Topaz Labs JPEG to RAW AI seems to get rid of macro-blocking. Topaz Labs offers six products, some with apparently overlapping functions. Yes, resolution can be traded for bit depth while maintaining the same color depth, but those figures are not mathematically correct. Keep in mind that bit depth is not actually color depth. Digital color depth is a product of resolution and bit depth: digital color depth = resolution x bit depth. The color depth of an image cannot be increased, unless something artificial is introduced (which is evidently what some of the Topaz Lab products do). So, scaling down the resolution of an image to increase bit depth won't add any color depth for grading. On the other hand, if you merely scaled down the resolution without summing the binned pixels and then just increased the bit depth, you likely threw away a lot of the color depth. The pixels have to be binned/summed (or averaged) to retain the image's color depth, when trading resolution for bit depth.

I would buy this camera just for the "beer functions!"

Glad to hear that Olympus is alive and well and advancing M4/3. 3 stops. Yes. 25 > 50 > 100 > 200.

I am not so sure that's the situation with my similar difficulty. Apple's HFS+ file system does some crazy things and is notoriously delicate. Don't throw away the drive. A Parted Magic torrent is free, and it takes about 15 minutes to download it, install it on a thumb drive and boot it on your Mac. If it sees your T5 drive, you're set.

I had a similar problem on a recent shoot with a Pocket 4K. The T5 drive was first accessed by the DIT's mac laptop, which put on the T5 drive all of the Apple FS hidden files. I was able to mount the drive on my Linux-booting Chromebook several times, but, unfortunately, I accidentally unplugged the drive without first unmounting it. In doing so, I apparently borked one of the hidden Apple FS files, because when I subsequently tried to mount it, I kept getting an error message that one of those Apple FS files was corrupted. When we connected the T5 drive to the first Mac laptop that accessed it, it had no problem mounting. Of course, you can reformat the drive on your Ipad after you have backed up all the files, correct? If not, I would suggest downloading the open source Parted Magic live OS. There are plenty of rescue/drive-accessing live OS's out there, but Parted Magic sometimes works when others don't. Parted Magic should be able to access your drive and format it. It costs $11 to directly download the compiled version, but there are usually several torrents available for free. Or, since it is open source, you could compile it yourself. ☺️

No problem. Here is the colorized version. However, I have a feeling black & white footage is not the real reason that they would dismiss the Buster Keaton classic. It probably has more to do with how actively and deeply they want to work their minds. "Never make the mistake of assuming the audience is any less intelligent than you are.” -- Rod Serling It appears that filmmakers are not as intelligent as they were back in Serling's day.

If you have an X86 based computer (Mac or PC), you can also just boot a free Linux live OS and use that to make ext4 partitions on a separate USB thumb drive. With the live OS still running, you can then copy the DCP file from your hard drive onto the new ext4 partition on the USB thumb drive. Here is Gparted Live, a Linux live distro configured expressly to run the Gparted partition editor

Yep. Below is a 98-year-old film story told with a lot less than what we have today . They didn't even have sound, and it is still entertaining!: Sorry to the pixel peepers for the YouTube compression! /s

US$1,200 for a 1200 watt HMI is a huge bargain (provided that it works safely and reliably). The desire to go with hardware store fixtures is understandable, but it is best to avoid them. The controllability and flexibility of many movie lights is primarily what makes them useful on film sets. Often, the light controls on the fixture are more important than the core of the fixture. So, you are getting much less than 40% of the capability with the hardware store fixtures. Instead, look for used film lighting fixtures.

If the camera (or subject) moves and if the foreground objects and background are not arranged in an orderly fashion, it can be very difficult to impossible to replicate the tilt-swing effect in post. Exactly.

Thanks for the reminder about tilt-swing/tilt-shift adapters. Nice video! The "miniature" gag is what most associate with these adapters, but I prefer the look when tilt-swing is used subtly for effect and to direct viewers' attention. A big problem that prevents the use of such adapters is that camera manufacturers unnecessarily commit their cameras to EF and PL mounts, instead of utilizing shallower mounts. Trying to duplicate the tilt-swing effect in post only works when the camera is locked down and when the objects in the frame are grouped in an orderly fashion from front-to-back.

Changing to another type of shoe in the middle of the day has helped me and others keep our feet refreshed and not aching. Try it, and see if it works for you.

Change shoes between the first half and second half of the day.

It sounds like the job is done -- no J-B Weld needed!

Don't use an epoxy that doesn't bond with the case material (polypropylene). PC-7 adheres to a lot of materials, but not polypropylene. J-B Weld epoxy is good, but it is more like a liquid than a hard putty. I don't know much about J-B Welder Plastic Bonder, but I read that it work on polypropylene. If it is not as strong as (or more brittle than) PC-7, J-B Weld or plumbers epoxy, perhaps the J-B Weld Bonder could be used just to coat the areas on the Pelican case that you wish to adhere the stronger epoxy. Sand the J-B Weld Bonder after it has cured to create rough texture for the stronger epoxy.

I've used lightweight, aluminum baby stands with tilting mechanisms mounted on top. Some such light stands with tubular legs are fairly sturdy and have a wide base (which is adjustable). The tilting mechanism that I used mounted to the baby pin on the top the stand, just like one mounts a light fixture onto a light stand. This configuration made it a breeze to swap the tilting head (with the camera mounted) between the baby pin on the light stand and the baby pin on my DIY camera stabilizer.

No need to overthink this patching job. Get some PC-7 or plumber's epoxy and try it on a hole. If it needs reinforcing, drill it out and try it again with reinforcement. Plumber's epoxy is more of a hard putty, so it will hold it's shape when curing (which only takes around 5 minutes).

I would try PC-7 epoxy, or J-B Weld or plumber's epoxy. PC-7 is probably the strongest, but plumber's epoxy is readily available at most hardware stores.