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.

7 hours ago, cantsin said:

I tried, but it doesn't work....

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.

6 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

MLVFS needs FUSE on MacOS, and it does work on Linux but I'd question why you'd even bother with it on Android as the mobile processors don't exactly cut through RAW video in Resolve, do they....

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:

51 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

For post processing you need an app called MLVFS (download) for MacOS or Windows.

MLVFS also works in most Linux distros (and, consequently, probably in Android as well).  It's just a simple compile using "make."

8 hours ago, no_connection said:

They ether have to pull something magic out of their sleeves that makes the image more desirable then the alternatives, or make the experience easier/better when using it or in post.

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.

8 hours ago, no_connection said:

Else there is not much need for it. It's a neat idea, just like the modular phone was, but when it comes down to it you ether use it because it's better or because you reeeeeeely want to.

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.

27 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

There are a couple of Fisher Price ones on there for 99 cents that would be more suitable than the RED was.

23 minutes ago, mercer said:

Yeah Pixel Vision would definitely capture the last leg in beautiful analog cassette tape. 

I love the look of the Fisher-Price Pixelvision!:

@BTM_Pix:   If they are selling at 99 cents, I'll take a dozen!

2 hours ago, hijodeibn said:

To be honest, I am not impressed at all by the footage, I would love to see some skintones, not cats,

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.

2 hours ago, hijodeibn said:

and with so many affordable good options today (GH5, C200, etc), the path for the Axiom is going to be really tough,

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!

On 6/10/2017 at 11:12 PM, tupp said:

Oh my goodness!  Do they ship to the USA?

On 6/11/2017 at 1:29 AM, Mattias Burling said:

Not that particular store. But I think some of the others with similar prices might.

If these stores have websites, please post links!

Thanks!

21 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

My current 4k bargain tip is the G7. A store here gets them in as trades sometimes and then sell them used with warranty for 250 bucks. Meaning, used without warranty... 200 and then Im generous.

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.

20 minutes ago, HockeyFan12 said:

What's CCD smear? Is that like the vertical lines you get with bright sources?

Yes. It's the vertical lines from bright sources (explained in this video).

23 minutes ago, HockeyFan12 said:

I have never seen it in F35 footage but that's my only experience with a CCD camera. I only worked with a little digital bolex footage but it didn't have any either

9 minutes ago, mat33 said:

It was never an issue with my D16 as I struggled to induce it even shooting into the sun, maybe older CCDs were more susceptible?

I think the high-end CCD cameras had some way of suppressing smear.

On 6/3/2017 at 8:06 PM, jax_rox said:

rolling shutter isn't as bad as CCD smear

Not sure I agree here.

On 6/3/2017 at 8:06 PM, jax_rox said:

RED is the company that really started the 'resolution wars' for lack of a better term.

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).

18 hours ago, Fritz Pierre said:

The mount choice and sensor size have nothing to do with one another...the relevance to everyone, you included if this camera is of interest to you, is that if they used an M4/3 mount on a s35 sensor , the camera could have adapted any and all lenses including cropping to M4/3 and S16

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).

5 hours ago, jax_rox said:

companies are in business first and foremost to make money.

Making customers happy with features they want is not done because a company is nice. It's done so that customers will buy their product, and they will make money. As Panasonic, if you look at the (lack of) popularity of the MFT mount in the market they're targetting, the popularity of the Canon C-series and the Sony FS-series, and the popularity of over-sampled S35 sensors - you'd be questioning an MFT mount.

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.

5 hours ago, jax_rox said:

Do you not think the discussion was had? Do you think they're sitting reading this forum now thinking 'oh damn, how did we never think of making it an MFT mount??!!!'. 

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.

5 hours ago, jax_rox said:

Camera manufacturers don't make cameras so you have lots of options to choose from, and can choose one that best suits your needs. [snip]  Camera manufacturers make cameras to make money.

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.

5 hours ago, jax_rox said:

I'm not sure how far they are from release, but I'm sure if there's enough want in the market for an MFT camera, they'll release something. Again, it will be a decision made out of whether they can make money from it, not whether a few people on the internet think it would be a good thing to have in a camera.

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.

19 hours ago, jonpais said:

Thanks! I guess there are a few decent Mexican places here, but nothing like food lovers paradise where you're at.

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.

6 hours ago, jonpais said:

Here's a short clip shot at a temple here in Saigon over the weekend. Straight out of the camera, no editing, no color correction, no nothing. Lumix G85, Cinelike D, Sharpening -3, NR -5.

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!

17 hours ago, arson519 said:

say it aint so just installed this yesterday on my pc but i think i downloaded it in april and it was sitting in my download folder since then should i be safe?

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.

On 5/8/2017 at 6:04 PM, Trek of Joy said:

... reading the condescending "pros never use AF" stuff gets old. I never understand the elitist attitude some have when people do things in a different way than what's been traditionally done.

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.

10 hours ago, cpc said:

Focus is simply one of these things an algorithm can do vastly better than humans. .

It's doubtful that an algorithm could have conceived of nor executed my above linked example.

10 hours ago, cpc said:

.. how often do you actually rack or do fancy creative focus work? 90% of pulling is tracking objects.

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.

23 minutes ago, Ben J. said:

I want a softer look without lowering contrast or affecting bokeh (as most softening filters do with making the bokeh look like you have dust particles on your lens). I know this is unorthodox, but if I touched the lens with my finger and put a bunch or finger prints on the lens, wouldn't that do a better job of softening the lens without lowering the contrast that much?

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.

On 4/30/2017 at 0:16 AM, jcs said:

Imagine editing quickly and freely with both hands (standing up and moving around!) with GUIs as seen in Minority Report.

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.

2 hours ago, Grégory LEROY said:

Why is there systematically big back light source in most of music videos?

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.

3 hours ago, tweak said:

I was saying this would be a good idea not too long ago in a thread and everyone was quick to jump on me and tell me I was a fool because no one would ever do E-mount except Sony... Cool if true, E-mount makes a lot of sense for most low budget shooters.

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.

3 hours ago, Hanriverprod said:

Aputure COB 300d Comparable to 2k tungsten...

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.

3 hours ago, Hanriverprod said:

It's just a little longer than the 120d and takes two batteries.

Plus, it has a long ballast.