Viet Bach Bui

I think ML's dual iso is not an actual merging of 2 different exposures but rather alternating between 2 iso values for each line of sensor readout.

In the HDR ON version of the beach shot the path to the beach looks underexposed to me. The car interior shot is a bit better. I would say it's around 1.5 stop of additonal DR, but what are the tradeoffs?

Are you actually here for help? People have given you advices but you're not willing to try anything new because it's a "shitty camera you will never buy."

I'm liking what I see here.

Nice cherry picking You should redo that with Nikon's own 24-70 f2.8 (http://j.mp/29NNDmG). That Sigma is a) a third party lens and b) not in the same league as the Sony GM or the Nikon Nano.

If you had mentioned Canon then I would have agreed because the Canon 24-70 f2.8 is compact and the whole package is shorter.

It's quite obvious that something was wrong with the FS5 setup in that video. That is as soft as a 720p footage being played on a full HD screen. Anyway, I just found the videos below on Vimeo. I think the image's got great tonality and should handle well in post.

I'm genuinely curious: what about the XT2's ergonomic make it better than, say, an A7 series camera? The compact rangefinder style bodies from Sony, Fuji and Oly all feel more or less the same to me.

When the A6300 overheats at 10min it's total crap. When Fuji does it it's brilliant because it can be increased to 30min with a grip, nevermind the fact that one can be used on the A6300 for the same effect

Put it on Amazon Direct? I think you have a better chance of actually making some bucks there.

14 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Have you tried it?

In my experience the DR is just fine, lots of info to bring out in the shadows and just as gradable as any 8-bit footage. 

 

No, just commenting on what I saw in this video.

And your experience is...interesting, considering what is displayed in this video. Perhaps the author didn't know what they were doing?

That Fuji video looks like something coming out of a smartphone: oversharpened, low dynamic range, baked in and saturated colors (which look nice, btw), little room to manipulate in post.

This video is fascinating. Not because of any point it's trying to make but because I got to see the everyday life of Americans, to see how they live, how they talk, how they react to a situation. Everything was so real, there was no staging, no gloss. The parts with the woman drug addict and the homeless guy just broke my heart.

American football :D

26 minutes ago, kidzrevil said:

?? Rx10 ii & iii are def hybrid cameras for photo & video. Do your research bro. 

But they are still more oriented towards stills. Same as A6300 and A7RII which can also do video very well. But whatever the RX10 is, it is not a professional camcorder, which both the XC10 and X70 are.

Btw, the AX100/X70 also have 1'' sensors.

Apples to oranges.

The XC10 should be compared to the AX100 from Sony, not the RX10 II which is primarily a stills camera.

EDIT: actually the Sony X70 is a better match since it's got the same MSRP as the XC10.

I just found out that a new Predator movie is being made. It's supposed to be a reboot of the franchise so I'm somewhat excited. The original is easily in my top 3 action movies ever and I still find it fun to rewatch every once in a while, as opposed the new crop of action movies from Marvel, DC and the likes which were fun to watch in the theater once but soon forgotten after. Is it just my nostalgia at play i.e. it was the movie I grew up with or is there really something special about classics like Predator, Terminator 2 or Die Hard that make them still enjoyable to these days?

Please also tell us what your favorite action movies are and, if possible, what you think make them stand out?

It would be nice if this blog/forum became a place for hobbyists like myself to discuss the art of making a good film/video rather than a place where people bicker over gear choices. I know there's a subforum for that here already but to post there would be like posting in the Video forum at DPReview. If you're tired of gear, why not shift the focus to what you can do with it?

3 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

Its much better but the DR drops already from slog 3 to 2, and again to cine gamma. 

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?327446-My-own-Sony-A7s-test-4K-resolution-dynamic-range-noise-and-GH4-comparison&highlight=

Colors look terrible on the Sony. Did you custom balance for white on both cameras? Also, what profiles were used?

There was a bit too much of that 3D VFX space ship thingy but other than that, impressive stuff!

5D3 RAW can shoot 1080p 60fps continuously now?

On April 29, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Mattias Burling said:

If only their camera would be as good...

Not as good for you, maybe. Sony having this momentum is not because their customers are idiots. Not everyone is obsessive about log colors or ergonomics.

Now if you replace "camera" with "lens system" I would agree.

My point of view is not racist, not even a bit. It would be if I had said that a black man wouldn't be capable of the feats that Roland pulled off, for instance.

And you're welcome to refute my points, had the discussion around Roland's race continued. I don't consider that an attack of any kind, just a plain old debate. But to call me racist for my preference of a character's race is a personal attack.

I think you're bending the facts a little too far your own way, and I was going to refute your points but then I realized that would be mucking up a thread with a topic of little interest to everyone else. So let me just say this: any fan of an artistic work should be able to defend their intepretation of it without being labelled as racist, sexist or whatever degoratory terms people like to throw around these days.

11 hours ago, DayRaven said:

Well, I mean, if a character whose skin colour is never mentioned is played by a black actor, whom the author of that character is happy with, and you don't like the choice specifically because of the colour of the actors skin... it kind of feels a bit racist.

Yes the author never said outright what Roland's race was but there are many parts where his race was alluded to (Roland having blue bombardier eyes, Eddie thinking he looks like a gunslinger from a spaghetti western) and other parts where it can be logically deducted (Detta's instant hatred of him and Eddie, she even mentioned a body part of him and Eddie being white in one instance). Yeah you can say that even after all that clues you still can not be 100% sure and that's true, but that's only technicality. What matters is that King portrayed Roland in a way that led us to think of the character as Caucasian.

PS: it doesn't matter that this cast is endorsed by King. What is he supposed to do? Criticize the choice and makes himself look bad under the political correctness machine that is our world today?