tupp

It might be good to consider a hackintosh. Here is a $70 hackintosh that outperforms a 2016 MacBook Pro and that can edit 4K video in FCP: I am not a post-production expert, but every pro editor with whom I've worked always transcodes footage for optimal performance on their NLE -- they never edit compressed/camera files.

Right... Did you try turning off your computer and then turning it back on? I've heard that doing so is the best remedy for oversimplified anecdotal computer problems. Actually, Android can run on x86 processors, and, as I recall, Android was briefly listed as a Linux distribution on Distrowatch in its early days, prior to the Google acquisition. However, I didn't mention the possibility of using MLVFS on Android to suggest that someone should try it. You left out an important OS that runs MLVFS (Linux), and I was merely giving another example of an OS (Android Linux) on which MLVFS could work. MLVFS is open source software, so it can probably be compiled to work on several other platforms (the BSDs notwithstanding).

Thanks for this article. Very helpful! From your article: MLVFS also works in most Linux distros (and, consequently, probably in Android as well). It's just a simple compile using "make."

They don't have to do any of that. They're an open source organization. It doesn't seem like they are trying to appeal to the typical Canon/EF/AF/IS type of shooter. They are developing a cinematography camera (and an exceptionally versatile one at that), so they probably aren't too concerned about making the "skin tones" perfect right out of the camera (nor about 5-axis IBIS, DPAF, etc.). They seem more dedicated to boosting image quality attributes that appeal to cinematographers. As the project is open source, this camera offers the most options for configuration and for imaging. On the other hand, the footage that has appeared over the last couple of years looks nice, and they seem to be doing a better job than BlackMagic and AJA with the same sensor. Some want a quality cinematography camera that is versatile/modifiable and completely controllable, allowing the creation of images slightly more distinctive than those from most others. The Axiom appeals to shooters of that type.

I love the look of the Fisher-Price Pixelvision!: @BTM_Pix: If they are selling at 99 cents, I'll take a dozen!

I thought the footage looked nice. However, I am fairly sure they have footage showing "skintones." On the other hand, this camera is still in the beta stage, so nothing is final, and, judging from the interview, there will be a few choices of low-level color styles and film stock emulation. Apertus is an open source organization. They probably are not trying to sell high volume to typical GH/EF shooters. It is likely that they are more interested in versatility and quality (and, of course freedom from proprietary constraints). By the way, these guys started around 2006, so they are tenacious. As I recall, their first raw camera(s) was one of the open source Elphel brand around 2008. They were early pioneers of a few things that we now take for granted, including interchangeable lens mounts and touch screen control/remotes. The have already released the developer version of the Axiom, and I have no doubt that they will release the production model (sounds like it could be next year!). They likely will get more out of the CMOSIS CMV12000 sensor than Blackmagic and Aja did.

Thanks for the link! This progress update is exciting. The footage from the Axiom has been looking nice for the last couple of years, and, judging from the interview, it sounds like there will be plenty of choice in regards to looks/"film stocks." Actually, they are giving plenty of choice in regards to everything! Can't wait till they start shipping production models!

If these stores have websites, please post links! Thanks!

Oh my goodness! Do they ship to the USA?

I don't see any huge focus problem, especially if you like hunt/seek. If you don't want hunt/seek, use digital zoom or have someone "pogo" a large monitor (with stand legs folded) for each camera operator. You might want to match the different clips a little more. All the "shoot-throughs" and CUs are great, but I have found that it is often beneficial to also have a full-length, clean, wide shot of the entire band from which to cut in and out.

Yes. It's the vertical lines from bright sources (explained in this video). I think the high-end CCD cameras had some way of suppressing smear.

Not sure I agree here. Actually, Dalsa and Thompson were in the video megapixel wars before RED existed. Dalsa had its Origin (4k) and Thompson had its Viper (9.2 MP). Exactly. There is no optical problem using any one of the current popular shallow mounts (M4/3, Sony E, Canon EF-M) with S35 sensors. Personally, I don't care about sensor cropping (auto or otherwise). Using an MFT mount (or Sony E or Canon EF-M) doesn't preclude the use of EF lenses (nor any other deep-mount market to which Panasonic would like to pander). It is very simple to start with an MFT mount, and merely provide an smart MFT-to-EF adapter that, after it is locked into place, additionally bolts onto the front of the camera for reinforcement. Said adapter could taper seamlessly and organically from the front of the camera body down the the EF mount, and none of the clueless EF shooters would realize that there is actually an adapter in place. I would guess that they dismissed the MFT option out of hand, because of hubris, laziness, and because solutions such as the organically integrated adapter scenario mentioned above would never occur to them. Some manufactures can actually see past their noses and beyond the immediate "bottom line." Such camera makers seek to make money in the long term and to proudly innovate in their industry while developing loyal, solid customer base. I would agree with you that Panasonic (and Canon and Sony) is not that type of manufacturer. Sadly, with the huge surge of production people in the digital age, many camera buyers seem less sophisticated than those of the pre-digital age , so legions of new digital shooters happily gobble up whatever a huge manufacturer provides.

Sony announced that it is developing a full frame CineAlta camera. Projected features: Full Frame 36x24mm sensor exclusively designed for this Digital Motion Picture Camera Aspect ratio-agnostic – including Full Frame, Super35 4K 4-perf 4:3 Anamorphic and 4K spherical 3-perf 17:9 New image sensor enabling exceptional picture quality Maintains the workflow established with Sony’s 16bit RAW/X-OCN and XAVC Compatible with current and upcoming hardware accessories for CineAlta cameras (DVF-EL200 Full HD OLED Viewfinder, AXS-R7 recorder, AXS-CR1 and AR1 card reader, AXS and SxS memory cards). Hope they use a reinforced E-mount (instead of FZ)!

Could you go for a 25mm, f1.4 lens, and just crop-in a little and stop down? If so, consider the $50 APS-C lens reviewed here.

This is a great. I can't wait try my Master Primes on it, along with my FF lenses and a focal reducer and/or tilt-shift adapter.

Not sure if I am in a food lovers paradise, but there is a lot of Mexican food. Lack of Mexican food would be a deal breaker for me.

Nothing wrong with that footage! It makes me want to move to Saigon. How's the Mexican food there?

@BTM_Pix Thank you for doing this. I was wondering if you could redo the first comparison without the cast shadows going through the charts. If you can, please put the charts in a sunlit area and please expose for the charts/sunlight. Thanks!

It's probably okay if you haven't installed it. Plus, they have probably eliminated the problem by the time you downloaded it. Might be good to read the release notes on the version you downloaded.

That "high-end" pros almost never use autofocus is not condescending -- it's a simple fact. Focus is often an important dimension of photographic artistry, and relinquishing decisions about such artistic expression to a machine is not something that a professional nor a craftsman would generally do. How would one use autofocus to execute the racks shown in this shot. Furthermore, there are aesthetic and practical reasons for using only manual cinema lenses. One might choose Master Prime or Crystal Express lenses for their performance or look, and if one is shooting on a cinema camera with a PL mount, lack of autofocus is moot. Using an autofocus lens both manually and automatically can be problematic, as manually racking focus requires solid marks that don't move (as is sometimes not the case with "focus-by-wire" AF lenses), so it is usually best to just stick with manual lenses. Even if one is using a camera that can take both autofocus lenses and manual cinema lenses, switching between AF lenses and cinema lenses can cause visual continuity problems. It's doubtful that an algorithm could have conceived of nor executed my above linked example. Here is a scene from a more recent production that is chock full of "fancy creative" and expressive focus racks, with virtually no focus tracking: Also, note the shot of the musicians that is purposefully thrown out of focus to convey the POV of the delirious character. By default, shooting with autofocus negates artistically deft, expressive racks such as these.

Of course, don't put the "schmear" directly on the lens element -- use a clear UV filter or some other separate piece of clear glass in front of the lens. Finger grease is usually more subtle than petroleum jelly, but finger grease will still lower contrast a little. Most "black dot" style diffusion/softening filters will give the effect of softening while still maintaining contrast.

In regards to Tom Cruise and computer interfaces, perhaps a sofa could be converted into a giant track pad that "clicks" when the user jumps up and down on it.

Is there? Most of the music videos on which I have worked were basically a bunch of flashy images cut together frenetically. Unless one is shooting a narrative music video, there is no "motivation" for the lighting, so anything goes. That is the fun of shooting music videos.

The licensing excuse is not the real reason that camera manufacturers don't provide shallow mounts. M4/3 works fine for up to S35, and there must about 5 zillion ways for manufacturers to allow a female E-mount mount (or an EF-M mount) on their camera/adapters, while avoiding licensing problems. One easy way is to simply provide a front plate with just screw holes and the end user can purchase the female e-mount separately. I saw the Kinefinity e-mount adapter at NAB, and it is definitely the way for camera manufacturers to go -- provide a shallow mount (simple mount plates are best) and make adapters for every possible lens.

I wouldn't be too sure of this claim. We need to see the photometrics with the beam angle delineated at 50% (one stop less) of max. Plus, it has a long ballast.