Don Kotlos

Cut it out Emanuel
The forum is not about you.
Sick of reading the argument stuff.

Not saying DPAF specifically, but a hybrid system with PADF like what Fuji, Sony, Olympus, and Nikon1 use - you know the rest of the camera industry.
I've seen people say similar things to "the colour doesn't fall apart in the same way the Sony does," but it looks like the gh5s is worse to my eyes. 

@IronFilm the audio's not as bad in this new test but still not perfecto. Some more cine-like images though:
 

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. 

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. 

Yes, Don, you're right. It's just funny that everybody raves about the long-awaited wheels without noticing that they offer less than the iMovie-ish Colorboard. Or without admitting it. I asked Mark Spencer in the comments to his Ripple Training, and he answered: "All color adjustments are iterative." 
Maybe over time we all realize the ingeniousness of those wheels, because getting it right in many time-consuming increments is possibly the most precise way to do it. This reminds me of a children's book of mine, in which two guys want to share a sausage. The smarter guy says, it's not exactly half, let me bite off the difference. In the end, of course, he has consumed the whole sausage.
 

On Creative Cow, someone has found that indeed in a 2020 project the Color Wheels work properly (and really well), whereas in 709 they are a mess. Best advice would be: stay away from the wheels if you are grading for rec_709! Nobody knows what happens when in the next update this gets fixed. You very probably lose all your rec_709 CC for existing projects ...

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. 

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. 

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). 
 

If you've ever suffered 5 minutes of Youtube Kids, your "algorithm" statement is completely correct.  Watch Sonic the Hedgehog drive Lightning Mcqueen off a skyscraper 1500 feet onto a farting velociraptor with breasts and Don Johnson loafers...  while "Daddy Finger" repeats in the background. 
I kind of hate that social media has given literally everyone a voice when I see Logan Paul as an example.  -Since feeling special and accepted is an ingrained part of every human being's natural make-up, social media, Youtube, etc.. - keeps us buried in our phones, constantly seeking value in "likes" and whatever trivial bullshit virtual currency there is.  It's a breeding ground for ill-advised priorities and narcissism.   Even if it’s just subscribing, you’re piggy backing a sense of community for the almighty motive - attention.  Everything is literally based on attention.  It drives the motive of most media "outrage" these days with a voice that says "Judge this motherf---er.  It's trendy."   or some idiot's default response to go full LiveLeak on a dead body.  
F'king Nightcrawler.  He's done. 

This thread is taking a bizarre turn.
The moral standard that we should promote empathy for the depressed so as to lessen the stigma around talking about what they're going through. The idea that we should reach out to the suffering so that their pain may be eased. 
Why are 'clicks' wrong, in this case? Because it raises one man's ego and personal gain over the wellbeing of society. If we look at this strictly from a utilitarian perspective, I think the joy this video can bring people is less than the harm it can cause. 
What if I'm wrong and on the wrong side of history? I don't know, what if? I have no way of knowing that now, but I do know that I feel a strongly about the morals in place in this case. Who decides what's wrong? Society, and judging by the size of the outcry, it's largely voicing that what Logan Paul did is wrong. 

This idea of questioning the moral standard doesn't make much sense to me, because we're all playing a part in shaping the moral standards of the present and the future. By raising our voices about what we think, we're doing our tiny bit to make the world a little bit more like what we'd want it to be. Sitting out of the conversation and getting this detachedly analytical about it is surrendering the shaping of our morality to the Logan Pauls of the world, who have no qualms about acting purely in their self-interest, apparently untroubled by this kind of introspection.

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 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. 

(This opinion-post contains strong language)
YouTube and Logan Paul share the same ethical standards: that is to say: none.
Read the full article

He is technically skilled for sure. But his view on women is in a serious need of an update. Im so tired of clische dudes that pose women as horny idiots and men as bad ass and cool.. the 70s are over.

I agree with Thomas's conclusions :
"Anyway, I'll continue to do some more testing, but to be honest, I’m not sure I would use the X-Pro 2 for video. There are just too many limitations in my opinion. Apart from not being able to adjust the picture profile, there’s also the really frustrating issue of not being able to switch between the EVF and the screen when recording. The sharpness is too high for my tastes too. If you’re shooting in controlled conditions the dynamic range is probably not going to be an issue, but outside, it limits what you can do, to an extent. It’s all well and good having all the different picture profiles, but in any situation with any kind of scene with a dynamic environment, most will be too contrasty to be usable without sacrificing highlights or shadows. At the end of the day though, much of this is subjective, and I’m sure there will be people who vigorously disagree with me, but that’s ok. If it works for you, that’s great. 
If you’re on the fence about buying a new X-Pro 2 and are considering it for video, don’t. If you want to stick with Fuji, the X-T2 will still be a better option as you can adjust the picture profiles and sharpness. Otherwise, the Panasonic GH5 or Sony a6500 are much better options at the moment if you want 4k. "

I agree with Thomas's conclusions :
"Anyway, I'll continue to do some more testing, but to be honest, I’m not sure I would use the X-Pro 2 for video. There are just too many limitations in my opinion. Apart from not being able to adjust the picture profile, there’s also the really frustrating issue of not being able to switch between the EVF and the screen when recording. The sharpness is too high for my tastes too. If you’re shooting in controlled conditions the dynamic range is probably not going to be an issue, but outside, it limits what you can do, to an extent. It’s all well and good having all the different picture profiles, but in any situation with any kind of scene with a dynamic environment, most will be too contrasty to be usable without sacrificing highlights or shadows. At the end of the day though, much of this is subjective, and I’m sure there will be people who vigorously disagree with me, but that’s ok. If it works for you, that’s great. 
If you’re on the fence about buying a new X-Pro 2 and are considering it for video, don’t. If you want to stick with Fuji, the X-T2 will still be a better option as you can adjust the picture profiles and sharpness. Otherwise, the Panasonic GH5 or Sony a6500 are much better options at the moment if you want 4k. "

Everyone would be better off in the future if they just use Cineform. When someone asks for Prores delivery, tell them that Cineform is better. If they insist tell them that they should be paying extra for the mac ecosystem, because at the end of the day it is costing you more money. 
Now it is open source.
https://gopro.com/news/gopro-open-sources-the-cineform-codec
https://gopro.github.io/cineform-sdk/
I am a mac user, but please stop using proprietary codecs. Especially the ones that don't work across platforms by design like Prores. 

Yep, and most generated  content is not even stylized that much to require extremely flat profiles. And in most cases with 8bit compressed codecs (or even many 10bit), you will get better results by getting natural colors in camera, and then using rec709 LUTs in post for stylization. 
The problem with the Sonys is that the default profiles (without the PP) are really only usable with daylight. At least for me, PP are NECESSARY to get the colors where I need to in any lighting condition. The control of the color with PP is so amazing that I find hard to use any camera that doesn't have them. Even a non-Sony. 
What all companies should implement is baking in LUTs both in video and in stills. Computationally it is trivial (they already do that), and it would add a tremendous amount of color control without the need of bandwidth-heavy codecs. 

iMac Pro does not look great. Unless you are working with H265 or RAW, you are better off with the iMac:
 

Everyone would be better off in the future if they just use Cineform. When someone asks for Prores delivery, tell them that Cineform is better. If they insist tell them that they should be paying extra for the mac ecosystem, because at the end of the day it is costing you more money. 
Now it is open source.
https://gopro.com/news/gopro-open-sources-the-cineform-codec
https://gopro.github.io/cineform-sdk/
I am a mac user, but please stop using proprietary codecs. Especially the ones that don't work across platforms by design like Prores. 

Perfect mount system. 
 

Yep, I used velcro in order to filter out most of the vibrations. Its much easier to detach/reattach as well... 

Yep, I used velcro in order to filter out most of the vibrations. Its much easier to detach/reattach as well...