Don Kotlos

The only reason I am not buying the A9, is the lack of picture profiles. The only reason I am not buying the A7rIII, is that I am hoping A7sIII has the same electronic shutter as A9. In the end, Sony will get less of my money. Makes no sense.

The gamut can be large but the bit depth can still be low. By using 8bits, you are effectively undersampling the larger space. Many Sony color profiles used a larger space than rec709. Even at 8bits, these are very useful, especially under artificial lighting. The trick is to boost saturation just enough so you don't get color clipping.

CMD+T adds a cross dissolve for the selected clip To add favorites effects: add an effect you want on a clip (it doesn't matter the clip), and then click the "Save Effects Preset". You can make a custom folder in which you can have all the effects you use. Drag & drop clips from finder into the timeline/media panel works for me. @DaveAltizerWhile I agree with you on most things about FCPX, I disagree with this: CUDA is not flawed. If anything the only flaw is that it should be used even more like in Resolve. And its not that Adobe has a preference for windows, it is Apple that does not use/allow decent CUDA cards in their systems anymore. If you use the latest cards in the 2010 mac pro then adobe performs great: The same happens if you use an eGPU like I have shown here . And if you try to blame adobe for having a bias for CUDA then I would argue that FCPX has a bias for AMD: The biggest feature that FCPX has, which you see published most often and has drawn many people to it myself included, is the use of intel QuickSync. That gives the most of the fluidity during H264 editing or speed during exports, and is what Premiere lacks. If it wasn't for that and the f*cked up subscription model of Adobe, I would have loved to stay with the feature-rich Premiere.

@Kisaha While FCPX is great if you own Apple hardware, I have had a very hard time getting the Quicksync to work in any of the hackintoshes that I have built. Stability is great if you get most of the drivers right, and for a laptop that is not always the easiest task but might be worth trying. The community in tonymacx86 is huge and you can get a lot of help. With the Xeons it depends on the version. For example, I could not get any of the X99 Xeons to work but I am guessing older versions that exist in the mac pros might work out of the box. Definitely try the desktop first to get some experience and once you feel more comfortable try the laptop.

If you are using Adobe with Mac and you don't mind the size, then the Mac Pro 2010 might be a better deal: Much easier & cheaper to upgrade, and you can have very fast pci-e drives as well. I have a USB 3.1 card for fast external storage. A hackintosh is a good solution as well for adobe programs, but if you are working with FCPX then an iMac or Macbook pro should be your only choice.

That's my guess as well.

Personally, the lack of picture profiles in A9 makes it a nogo for video. AF looks to me pretty much the same. Then there is the difference in resolution:

I saw the movie a few weeks ago but only now read about it because of this thread. I can say that this is an interesting genre but the problem is that it only works if you haven't read about it. So while it worked for me before, had I seen it now I would be much more dismissive.

Yep timecode should have been there for its intended use. Also an xlr module with phantom power would make it much more useful.

I don't find it unlikely for sigma to be developing lenses for Nikon Z mount. Sigma is planning on releasing several native E mount lenses as well. It would make sense to have a common lens design that is shared across mirrorless cameras with short flange distance. Same way DSLR series exist for 3 mount systems but they are practically the same lens. This would be a golden opportunity for a lens company to enter a brand new mount system that will most definitely have very limited lens selection for the first couple of years, and it will be a good idea for Nikon as well to have plenty of choices for a new mount system.

The dual gain depends on the capabilities of the sensor, so my guess is that by design that sensor is fixed to 400/2500. Changing that would require changing the analog circuits on the sensor. I agree. And that is the main advantage of this sensor, having a very good dynamic range in dim light. With a linear scale such as RAW the bit depth directly translates to the stops in dynamic range. To get around that, non-linear functions change the input-output relation (gamma) and companies use different names for them (S-log, V-log, C-log..). Depending on the capabilities of the sensor and the bit depth of the file, the log can be more aggressive, by compressing more the highlight information. The bitrate does not affect dynamic range. So Sony could do it by a combination of sensor performance/more aggressive log gamma. No. That is only the case when you move to global shutter.

If the "native" term is used as loosely as Panasonic marketing team then yes that is correct More correct is that dual gain has been around for quite some time, used by many cameras. Generally, native ISO should mean an ISO setting without any gain applied, but Panasonic defines two native ISOs as two base ISO settings that yield similar noise profiles: The varicams get the closest to actually having dual native/base ISO, but the EVA1 (and I am guessing the GH5s as well) does not (http://zsyst.com/2017/12/panasonic-eva1-first-look/): Whereas the noise profiles from Sony cameras come very close (A7s is even closer to true native ISO than EVA1...): This tells you how well Panasonic plays the marketing game.

I am quite happy with the 24-70 f/4. Very decent quality but yeah the manual focus is bad. AF is fast and silent though. The new 24-105 is also very interesting but a bit larger... Personally I wouldn't buy any non-native general purpose lens cause the AF is so useful now. The FF Sigma is very good but with limited range, and once sigma releases native art lenses they will be a great choice.

@Emanuel The market for the GH5s is far smaller than the one for GH5, hence the price difference. Also, you have to factor in that the sensor in the GH5 is used across many models. As for your concerns about IBIS, I can tell you with certainty that temperature affects the noise of the image, and placing a large heat sink on the sensor can give a much better image. For example, this is the heat sink that ursa mini is using:

In my experience Premiere works better with CUDA than OpenCL but you can always use an NVIDIA eGPU (if you can select the GPU in the latest premiere that is). Unfortunately, we didn't see any laptops with the 6 core Coffee Lake-H, which would be optimal for Premiere.

Yeah, I was expecting that after the latest Intel CPUs... Damn miners @Dustin There is a new XPS15 with the new built-in vega card: http://www.zdnet.com/article/ces-2018-dell-announces-new-xps-15/

That deal was only yesterday. If I had EF lenses then $99 for a speedbooster even without proper AF I would jump on it. If you already have EF lenses and care about AF in video, then most likely you have a canon camera with dual AF.

Three great points for me are: 1. For the same DoF, it looks like the GH5s offers similar noise performance to the A7sII. 2. The inclusion of an antialiasing filter. 3. Better rolling shutter performance What I would like to have seen is baked-in LUTs and of course, IBIS. This means this is not suited for my type of shooting, but for a more professional environment, this should be a fine camera.

I imagine if you have EF lenses this is a pretty good deal. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1295246-REG/vello_lag_nex_cef_canon_ef_lens_to.html

I am disappointed for the lack of IBIS as well but I use a Starvis sensor on a machine vision camera at work and it gets really hot. We have to use a lot of heat sinks to get the noise low enough so I understand the need with the GH5s to be mounted on a huge heat sink instead of floating around.

The unethical part is the personal gain over another one's loss. Both the clown and the company are at fault here. The clown did it for clicks which gave him more money. YT also works on clicks. More moderation --> less people visit --> less money from advertisers. I would even put more blame on YT since it affects many more people than one lousy channel. And if you believe YT can't do much, think of how quickly & efficiently they blocked all copyrighted content. And you can't argue against the widespread traumatic experience of showing content like that. If you even believe that this will make people less suicidal, then you have it all wrong since psychological studies show that it only makes things even worse. At the end, they both exchanged money for f*cking other people. You can clearly see the difference between quality content and plain click-driven-shit when you compare the front page of Vimeo to the one of YT.

The most efficient way for me to adjust the contrast has always been manipulating the luma curve directly, and that is now supported by FCPX so I am happy I could never get used to the lift-gamma-gain. Too much work for a simple thing.

To tell you the truth, I am not that impressed by that laptop. 1050 is a good card but soon it will be a limitation and since there is no TB3 port you will be stuck. Also, the lack of other high-speed ports is not great for video editing (USB3.1 gen1 max, you want gen2 or TB3). Personally, I would not get a laptop without a TB3 port. If you like the ASUS aesthetics then the GL702VM line is much better and probably worth the extra money. You can find them cheap on eBay. I will mention this again if you can wait few days until the CES 2018 (this Sunday).