tupp

Was browsing TradeMe (NZ's version of eBay) for radio equipment, when I saw to my surprise a camera:

Panasonic GX80 for dirt cheap! Yusss

https://www.trademe.co.nz/electronics-photography/radio-equipment/amateur-radio/listing-2583819575.htm


https://www.radiomuseum.org/r/panasonic_5_band_receiver_gx80_rf_1680l.html
https://youtu.be/EoJ_okQl5vU

Oh wait, that is indeed a radio! Not a camera at all. 

Interesting, Panasonic "reused" a model name?

Evidently, the Octopus prototype with the Ximea m4/3 module has been up and running for awhile:
Hopefully, the Octopus folks can get this camera into production.

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!:
 

Hope he has a good aim. He might break the neighbour's window.
And the neighbour would be even more pissed off after they find it has no 10bit codec to protect the FX9.

Evidently, the Octopus prototype with the Ximea m4/3 module has been up and running for awhile:
Hopefully, the Octopus folks can get this camera into production.

Try being an older video pro that's had a long career and now has to deal with the devaluation and ad-hoc nature of this new video production reality.  It's hard not to keep one's head from exploding.

Dear EphariamP:
You stated the following in your post:
"Sorry, but you are wrong here. 62,984,828 people voted for Trump, vs 65,853,514 for Clinton, so nearly 3 million more voted for Clinton. Why isn't SHE president? Thank our regressive electoral college system put in place by aristocratic southern slaveholders."
You do not understand the origins of the US Constitution.  During the Constitutional Convention of 1787 one of the biggest hurdles to overcome was that the small states were concerned about being dominated by the large states.  To get agreement amongst the 13 states they agreed to the following:
Bicarmal legislature with the lower house (House of Representatives) to be proportional to the population and an upper house (Senate) where each state would have two senators. That the President would be determined by the majority of electors.  With each state having a number of electors equal to the number of members in the House of Representatives plus two Senators. You made the statement that our "electoral college systems was put in place by aristocratic southern slave owners".  But who were the large states of the day: New York(non-slave), Pennsylvania(non-slave), Massachusetts (non-slave), Virginia(slave), and  North Carolina(slave).  And the small states were: New Jersey (non-slave), Connecticut (non-slave), Rhode Island (non-slave), Vermont (non-slave), and Maine (non-slave).
As you can see, it was the small, non-slave states that wanted what has become known as the Connecticut or the Great Compromise not the "aristocratic southern slaveholders" as you asserted.
When you make statements like this it important to get your facts correct.
Let the revisionists begin with their flaming and possible banning from the this site.  Regardless, I don't care. Just want to make sure that the history is correct.
Sincerely,
Don

Many years ago when I used to have to go over to do jobs in LA quite regularly, I always used to stay the Roosevelt.
Ironically, the last time I went there I did actually spend the better part of a week in self isolation lockdown in one of their rooms and practically became a one man creator of a toilet roll shortage.
And thats why we never go to faux British pubs to eat Fish and Chips anymore  

Yes looks every bit as bad as expected...
Honestly looks like total muck.
Contrast is your friend.
Look at lighting in Citizen Kane.

Yeah HDR using 3 different photos shot at three different exposures. 
Most sensors now can do 10 stops of dynamic range easily. If you combined three photos at three different exposures you'd have something with more dynamic range than an Alexa I'd say. I'd imagine its just a matter of a processor/sensor that can take three photos at the same time, if thats possible. 

There is a bit of overlap in terminology, so It's confusing.  By "triple exposure video," I think that OP intended to mean "HDR video with three different exposure levels."
 
Historically, the terms "double exposure" and "multiple exposure" meant exposing a single piece of emulsion in-camera, two or more times, to combine different images into something like this:

 
With digital imaging, the multiple exposure process is a little different, because each exposure is a separate image and, thus, a separate file.  Some digital cameras offer various ways to combine files and to create multiple exposure images, such as the Canon 5D mkIII and the Olympus OMD cameras.
 
Undoubtedly, most who create "multiple exposure" images today are combining the images in post/editing.
 
 
Magic Lantern offers two HDR video methods:  Dual ISO (which you mentioned) and HDR video.  I don't remember which method appeared first.
 
ML's Dual ISO is a technique in which every other row of pixels is given a different exposure/gain.  So, for example, all "even" rows are given a darker exposure while all "odd" rows are given a brighter exposure.  The separate exposures are "blended" to make a single HDR image.  This method can induce aliasing/moire.
 
Our own @ZEEK made a video tutorial on setting up a Dual ISO raw video on a Canon EOSM:
 
Incidentally, "dual ISO" has morphed into a term for more recent cameras featuring a sensor that can be "set" to one of two native ISOs.
 
On the other hand, ML's HDR video simply gives a different exposure/gain to every other frame.  For instance, every "odd" frame is given a darker exposure while every "even" frame is given a brighter exposure.  This technique doesn't suffer the aliasing/moire of ML's Dual ISO, but I seem to recall reports of motion artifacts.
 
By the way, prior to ML's Dual ISO, Panavision touted their Dyanmax HDR sensor which was claimed to feature three different, nested pixel arrays, with each array having a different exposure (somewhat similar to ML Dual ISO).  Panavision has remained mysterious in regards to why they abandoned the idea (and subsequently sold their sensor foundry).
 
 
It was done in 2010 with two Canon 5D mkII's and a beam splitter (probably the mirror type):
 
 
Here is another early method from 2011 with a single Canon 7D and a post process:
 
 
For three cameras, one could possibly use a prism beam splitter.  If one could put the beam splitter and three shallow-mount cameras in a light-tight enclosure, it might be possible to use a single "taking" lens.

There is a bit of overlap in terminology, so It's confusing.  By "triple exposure video," I think that OP intended to mean "HDR video with three different exposure levels."
 
Historically, the terms "double exposure" and "multiple exposure" meant exposing a single piece of emulsion in-camera, two or more times, to combine different images into something like this:

 
With digital imaging, the multiple exposure process is a little different, because each exposure is a separate image and, thus, a separate file.  Some digital cameras offer various ways to combine files and to create multiple exposure images, such as the Canon 5D mkIII and the Olympus OMD cameras.
 
Undoubtedly, most who create "multiple exposure" images today are combining the images in post/editing.
 
 
Magic Lantern offers two HDR video methods:  Dual ISO (which you mentioned) and HDR video.  I don't remember which method appeared first.
 
ML's Dual ISO is a technique in which every other row of pixels is given a different exposure/gain.  So, for example, all "even" rows are given a darker exposure while all "odd" rows are given a brighter exposure.  The separate exposures are "blended" to make a single HDR image.  This method can induce aliasing/moire.
 
Our own @ZEEK made a video tutorial on setting up a Dual ISO raw video on a Canon EOSM:
 
Incidentally, "dual ISO" has morphed into a term for more recent cameras featuring a sensor that can be "set" to one of two native ISOs.
 
On the other hand, ML's HDR video simply gives a different exposure/gain to every other frame.  For instance, every "odd" frame is given a darker exposure while every "even" frame is given a brighter exposure.  This technique doesn't suffer the aliasing/moire of ML's Dual ISO, but I seem to recall reports of motion artifacts.
 
By the way, prior to ML's Dual ISO, Panavision touted their Dyanmax HDR sensor which was claimed to feature three different, nested pixel arrays, with each array having a different exposure (somewhat similar to ML Dual ISO).  Panavision has remained mysterious in regards to why they abandoned the idea (and subsequently sold their sensor foundry).
 
 
It was done in 2010 with two Canon 5D mkII's and a beam splitter (probably the mirror type):
 
 
Here is another early method from 2011 with a single Canon 7D and a post process:
 
 
For three cameras, one could possibly use a prism beam splitter.  If one could put the beam splitter and three shallow-mount cameras in a light-tight enclosure, it might be possible to use a single "taking" lens.

sorry, I don't understand, what do you guys mean by "triple exposure video"...? how would that work, and for what purpose...?
I'm dumb lol

There might be ways that a cinematographer and editor could  "interpret" a performance.  And, perhaps, lighting could influence a performance, as could lenses, DOF (if the actor/performer could see those results on set).
 
However, it is not the cinematographer's job to influence a performance -- that is the directors job.
 
In regards to an editor or cinematographer "interpreting" a performance, both crew members exist to serve the director's vision.  So, they can suggest ideas and execute their craft, but the director necessarily has the final word.

It would not be easy to do this with auto focus.

It would not be easy to do this with auto focus.

How about a smaller and cheaper C100 like camera (c1000?) with EF-M mount 😎

A complete camera rehousing has already been done with a BM camera.
 
Due to BM's "design aesthetic," there also have been several other mods to their cameras.  Remember the Wooden camera BMPC lens mount mod?  How about their current BMPCC6K lens mount mod kit?
 
 
That would be great!  By the way, a Chinese company has already added the hinged screen.

It's almost as if you feel the need to excuse it, as if it being normal makes it ok to run a shitty organisation that could be far better if the ethics and management were improved upon.
Canon and Blackmagic have been the biggest disappointments for me both in terms of how they treat staff (and myself included even though I don't work for them) and their products.

We had lens rehousing, now we need camera rehousing.
Let's see a Chinese company take the inside out of the Pocket 6K and put it all in a different body... Adding the hinge to the screen, don't forget.

I wonder how many fewer cameras Canon would have sold to filmmakers if not for MagicLantern?

Half?

Smart man!
 
  


Haha, that analogy is hilarious! I like it

Anyway, you're right those changes would make the BMPCC4K/6K better for working on film sets. 

However you forgot there are many many people who are buying Pockets for casual shooting or youtube etc

They're not rigging it up and working with crews. The DSLR-ish form factor of the Pocket works better for them than an Arri Mini / RED "box".

And then you've got "film sets" which barely justify the name, small indie stuff with just a few people. The kind of shoots which were using a 5D/60D/etc before BMD came along. 
Same there, maaaybe they'll add an external monitor and an external battery. The DSLR-ish form factor works for them. 


 

Newsflash: Almost every large company is run like this. Once a company achieves a certain scale, old school management principles come into play. A strict hierarchy is established and innovative minds tend to get pushed to the bottom. Companies are run by MBAs, not by camera nerds. Small start-ups can run a bit leaner and display truly innovative and disruptive behavior. But that only lasts until it's sold off or becomes a key player in the industry. Then the dogs start chewing at each other.
About Black Magic, I appreciate the image quality on both the Pocket 6k and the Ursa Mini. But the so-called "industrial design" is pretty atrocious and the build quality still leaves a lot to be desired. They would do well to charge a few thousand more and equip their camera with fully aluminum bodies, so that they stand up better to on-set use. And the Pocket has the worst form factor of any camera on the planet. No amount of cages, rigs or battery plates can turn it into a functional piece of cinema equipment. It's like a camera designed by an ancient Egyptian who'd only seen a camera in hieroglyphs. 

when i joined the forum all the talk was about the  p4k. Stylish was not a word that came up often,  but that didn't bother me. i came from dslr's so the p4k design didn't seem to dissimilar from a dslr . Imagine that, a cinema camera that looked a bit like a dslr, something i could relate to. I would speculate that bm pitched it like that to sell a few more to mum and dads and other potential new users. must of worked, i preordered 😁
 
if your relying on hieroglyphs then your in luck, probably the easiest ui to interpret would be the p4k. 😉 Can you point my to a link where industrial design is specified ? I have reread the box and all the brochures i can find but it seems bm made no claims of industrial design apart from carbon fibre in the body ?
if it were $2000 more, a whole bunch of us wouldn't have bought it, myself included. I personally think that it fulfills a niche and so far its done all i have asked of it . i can't claim it on tax so i personally prefer to treat it like a camera rather than a football. my precious !!! muuArh haha.... cough, cough.

 
edit : it should come as no surprise how some companies behave been my experience the bigger they are the more refined they are generally, smaller ones, the boss tends to have a misplaced god complex. if you haven't experienced this then be very very grateful.

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.