SleepyWill

Hehe, good on him - personally I wouldn't have the patience to schmooze the people with the money, which is why I have to work a second regular job just so I can pay my actors and crew for a day a week!

No, it's not - I made it! I just simply googled "tree", took the top 1000 images and combined them together. I wrote a simple little program to automate the process but haven't done anything meaningful with it yet, but "tomato slice" works particularly well, as does "banana" and "cucumber slice" (I had a food blog and used those three as the header). "Apple" is interesting as it is half apple logo's and half fruit:

There's definitely something going on in the saturation in yellow through to emerald part of the spectrum, and as pointed out, trying to correct this in white balance is going to desaturate every other colour, requiring further correction before an equilibrium is found which affects, and this is important - only those of us who don't like that look, which is the people questioning the colours of the A7s. In real terms, once we have a corrective LUT, which will take all of a day to make, the issues are solved forever, but of course, this pushes the colours which gives less room for grading, how much less? 5-10% at a guess, so it's probably only going to affect those who want to really make something stylised or are just learning and need to correct for camera handling errors in post. Shrugs, who really cares? It's a wonderful camera producing wonderful images that some people subjectively find gorgeous and some people find unnatural but a bit of post work can make the footage look just as you want, assuming you have the skill to use the camera and know what look you want before you pick it up and are familiar with it's tendency to boost the saturation of certain tones. I don't find the image immediately pleasing because of the issues I believe the camera has and I see it in nearly every video, but I am confident I can make the footage sing to my tune in post, so if I were in the market for a new camera, this would be a genuine contender for me and I would not dismiss it on its treatment of colours. But I'm not, so take my opinion with the same pinch of salt that it is given with - spent all day making a movie and spending time with my son, so haven't given it much thought, time or effort!

Calm down, from the way I read it, no-one is disputing your opinion, but rather the language that you use isn't making sense to others. You say that the colours look unnatural to you. That's fine. What is a bit odd is when you are politely asked what you mean, you get defensive. Can you help the people out who don't see through your eyes and interpret with your brain why it looks unnatural to you, using words to explain what you mean - treat it as a game of taboo or charades. You have to describe why you don't like the colours without using the word unnatural, because that is what people are not understanding. If it helps, let me explain why I think the A7S image looks unnatural to my eyes. It seems as if certain shades of green are being saturated more than others, resulting in strange saturation graduations. Where other cameras don't pump those particular frequencies, the saturation doesn't jump so much. I could be wrong, I never pixel peep, I am not in the market for a camera so am not researching it, it's just what I think I've noticed from the footage I've seen.

Unfortunately user Wibblewobbles on the Rockpapershotgun blog beat you to pointing out that I had said something that had been said before on the internet by some years. FYI, bluetack works. Maybe PB spied me using it successfully, as I have been for years ;) I do spend a lot of time filming in Brighton and London

Bluetack! Woohoo, I'm in the money...

That you have anthropomorphisized a perfectly good descriptive word is why I'm not going to talk to you any more about linguistics. Please re-read what you wrote - you defined dull as lack of interest and then called Bay's shots dull because every shot has too much interest. That's why it's important to not attribute human feelings to words, it gets confusing.

It's dull because it's a static shot of a piece of concrete. Remember the context in which we are having this discussion, people talking about finding shots taken from a drone from up high as being dull, because there is no dynamism in them. This is why I think you didn't understand my use of the word dull because I agree with everything you are saying! The shot is dull, and not only is that OK, it's preferable to every shot being MBay'd!

To me, this shot in Amelie is bland: '> and this shot is dull: Completely removed from the film they are in, they are boring, uninteresting and, well a bit crap. If I showed you those in isolation and told you they were made by one of the greatest film makers of our times, you might well call me names on the internet, de-construct them slowly to prove how wrong I was (the royal you). Yet they, in context are absolutely brilliant. We may very well be agreeing but using different words in different ways.

There are full frame e mount lenses which will illuminate the full frame sensor without an adapter, but using the crop frame e mount lenses will only illuminate the aps-c aspect of the sensor.

Fair enough - I didn't see what you had to work with, and I hope I made it clear that I do not view MB's style as anything positive!

I don't disagree with you, but it did make me laugh that you shared a link to a digital copy of the photo, which makes a point - that while film is beautiful, to reach an audience through the internet, you need to take a digital image at some point, through some manner of digital sensor, and if you loved that photo because you saw it on your screen, you loved a digital photo, not the original film!

I've said it before, the pocket is the perfect camera to learn cinematography on - but you wouldn't want to use it under pressure.

Just like there are some places in the house where I absolutely would hang a Kincaid over a Wyeth (Anywhere the kids have access to), not every shot needs to be the absolute maximum. Sure in isolation, that high static landscape may be dull but in a production, bland, dull shots are important! Go watch a Michael Bay movie, every shot is pumped up to the max, it is a breathless experience, he even one ups himself (bomb dropping from plane in Pearl Harbour vs Prime dropping from spaceship - two identical shots, identical movements, one has been pumped up even more!) - now obviously he wants his audience to be breathless, he wants to throw so much on the screen that the eyes see it but the brain can't process it all - it's what he does but immediately after you watch a bay move, go watch a hitchcock or a scorsese, notice all the bland, dull shots they use to give the audience a chance to shut off their visual cortex, to process what just happened!

Deleted post, I'll post when I have access to those screens again, suffice to say, no colour cast from what I can see (under terrible conditions)

Oh sure - I choose my words very carefully! What's interesting is that, and bear in mind ALL these monitors are for professional use and calibrated by people who know what they are doing! When viewed on a Viewsonic PLS panel with the AG coating removed driven by a Quadro, I really like the original best. When viewed on a Dell IPS panel with reasonably aggressive AG coating left on driven by a Quadro, the original looks flat, I prefer yours. When viewed on an ASUS IPS panel with the best AG I have even encountered, driven by a Quadro, I like both equally. When viewed on a Viewsonic PLS panel with the AG coating removed driven by a Firepro, I really like the original best. When viewed on a Dell IPS panel with reasonably aggressive AG coating left on driven by a Firepro, the original looks flat, I prefer yours. When viewed on an ASUS IPS panel with the best AG I have even encountered, driven by a Firepro, I like the original best, the colors on yours look way too much. When the same monitors were driven by both Geforce/Radeon, the results are the same as above and predictably when viewed on a TN panel, they both look muted. And on my TV, I prefer the original, but yours matches most programs! So in conclusion, I think the AG treatment on monitors has a massive effect but mostly it's all in the eye of the beholder!

Ohhh... proof positive that colour is in the eye of the beholder (and their monitor) Yours, on my monitor and to my eye looks over saturated and like you've put it through a tv's "cinema" mode. I find the original (and I share some peoples concerns about the A7s colour rendering) much more natural, much more pleasing and far less Michael Bay. But please don't take that as criticism, I'm almost certain if I looked at it on your, doubtlessly scrupulously calibrated monitor (as is mine) I would share your opinion, it's just the difference in rendering and taste.

I mean, we all mod our kit - that it can't out of the factory doesn't mean that it didn't and, presumably the police have to provide evidence that what they say happened did in fact happen - those helicopters have cameras and they are very good at pointing it in the direction of trouble so if there is no footage, I would be very suspicious - but then if there was no footage, any half decent lawyer is going to run circles around the prosecution.

Given the law in the US, it would seem that they acted appropriately, unless they flat out lied about having to change course to avoid getting too close to it. That these guys are getting felony charges instead of a slap on the wrist and a leaflet detailing their local airspace rules is the over-reaction, but that's on the DA's office, not the police themselves. Presumably it wants to make an example.

While that may be true, don't tar all amateurs with that brush - I love film making and yes, I make films about my kid, my dog and a tonne of other stuff you're not going to enjoy watching - but then, you're not the intended audience. When I make a movie about an incredible bridge I saw, just remember, when you sneer at it, you're sneering at my holiday album - I put it on vimeo so that I can share it with the other people who were on holiday with me by sharing a link. Do I rack focus, well actually I do, but do you make you family wait for golden hour to make sure your holiday snaps of bridges are "professional" quality? I'm not a professional, I don't want to be and if you know you can make better than me by virtue of doing it for your living, that's just fine, but I'm a test driver for a living. I get to drive exotic cars every day of my life, fast around amazing roads. Is it fair of me to sneer at what car you drive, offer professional level "critique" when you need a second stab at parking straight, chortle at you in internet forums as you can't change a wheel in 30 seconds? I understand what it's like to be so good at something that you can make a living out of it while being surrounded by everyone else who can only just function, I really do, but I promise you, it's not necessary to be a bellend about it.

This!!!

As a newcomer to the forums, and one who wishes to be a positive member but won't have the time to prove myself, all I ask is that there is some public section, even if you never go there yourself to allow us newbies to prove ourselves and if some few of us prove to be the type of people you want, that we can be highlighted to you somehow and get access!

Depends on how vigilant they are on the integrity of their own accusations really - the people in here throwing around accusations clearly didn't do the research they demanded of the site here, so they just came here, made some rude, unpleasant comments and are yet to apologise for the mistake they made and Captain hook really needs to research fair use for review purposes before making requests on behalf of someone else, in public in a clear attempt to stir the faeces.

I was referring to the sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 but there is also the: sigma 10-20 f3.5 nikon 10-24mm f3.5-4.5 tokina 10-17mm f3.5-4.5 samyang 10mm f2.8 if you want faster or the: samyang 8mm T3.8 sigma 8-16 f4.5-5.6 if you want wider All of course require the metabones speedbooster

While it does beg the question, why use FAT 32, a file system literally designed to deal with fragmentation efficiently if you are only going to write segments- at least we know that this mean the cameras are wringing every drop of performance out of the hardware they can - the process to write continuously over several fragments is less than a single percentage of writing a single frame, which means that the cameras do not have that much processing resource free. Nice in a world where most people sandbag their hardware and you pay for significantly more than you actually get. I wonder if the answer is something along the lines of allowing you to delete clips but that space can't be utilised by the camera until you "defrag" the card - so if you have a 64Gb card, and you have three clips recorded - a 10Gb file (1) a 30Gb file (2) and a 5 Gb file (3) - you have 11Gb left, give or take but if you delete clip 1 or 2, you continue to have 11Gb left until you press the defrag option - it ties up the camera for a few minutes, but then you have that extra space available, though this approach is hardly the most battery friendly approach!