Jonesy Jones

6 minutes ago, mercer said:

Is there any way to see who liked a comment?

Give the like counter a little tappy tap. 

1 hour ago, gsenroc said:

I'm actually a bit confused by the email - license key solution, does it also work for the future versions or is it just Resolve 14 only?

Yes. Buy once, you will have free upgrades to future releases.

1 hour ago, AaronChicago said:

I've got a shoot today where I can do a quick A/B on a subject.

That would be sweet. Particularly seeing this on skin.

2 hours ago, jonpais said:

ETC stands for extra tele conversion, which in 4K gives you a 1.4x crop with no visible degradation of image quality, effectively doubling the number of lenses in your collection. I just posted a sample in 'lenses', where the Laowa 7.5mm does double duty as a 10.5mm. 

Jon, could you help me with the math?

So, let's say I have 28mm lens. Then I use a metabones .64x speed booster. That lens is now a 17.92mm, lets round up to 18mm. Then I double for the GH5 crop, and it's 35mm equiv is 36mm. Then with ETC, it is 36x1.4=50. So the 35mm equiv of a 28mm lens on a GH5 with .64x speed booster with ETC enabled is roughly 50mm. Is my math correct?

1 minute ago, jonpais said:

ETCstands for extra tele conversion, which in 4K gives you a 1.4x crop with no visible degradation of image quality, effectively doubling the number of lenses in your collection. I just posted a sample in 'lenses', where the Laowa 7.5mm does double duty as a 10.5mm. 

Man, this camera keeps getting better. And it's embarrassing I didn't know this already. 

12 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Only on stills but I just did a quick shot for you using the Tiffen Digital Diffusion FX 2

Frame and crop without filter on left side and same with filter on right.

 

Wow. Thanks bro. Got to be honest, the FX2 looks a little much. 

On 9/17/2017 at 10:30 PM, AaronChicago said:

I have the GH5 and 12-35, I could do a quick A/B test tomorrow. Otherwise I have a few examples used on the UM46k but there’s no “before/after”.

This would be great. But if it's too much hassle don't worry about it. I think I'm going to order a few and run some tests. 

On 9/17/2017 at 10:48 PM, jonpais said:

ETC enabled

Jon, what is ETC? 

On 9/17/2017 at 10:48 PM, jonpais said:

On the other hand, I sort of like the Sergio Leone look, where you can count every pore on the actors' faces, but if I were shooting weddings, or wanted to flatter a talent's appearance, I'd definitely consider picking some of these up.

I like that look too. However, with the GH5 it goes beyond that to sharpening that looks videoish. I am hoping that these filters help take the edge off a tad, but leave the detail. 

I'm not sure what the GH5 has going on under the hood, but my impression is that in order to avoid noise and moire they process the image in less than ideal ways. 

2 hours ago, mercer said:

In your opinion, does the GH5 give you half the quality of the Ursa? More than half? Less than?

Tough to say. There's all the peripheral stuff you could point to like ND's and IBIS and size and so on. But image quality alone the UMPro obviously wins. But I will say that when I pulled out the GH5 for the first time I thought to myself, this looks nearly identical to how this would look if I were shooting with the UMPro. On further review I'd say the GH5 is 80-90% of the UMPro. My hope is that with filters, correct v log exposure, the right lut and better post, I can mitigate some of that last 10-20%. 

1 minute ago, mercer said:

Do you still have an Ursa Pro?

No. Sold it. I loved the image though. But downscaling to the awesome but less expensive GH5 was the way to go for me. 

10 hours ago, rokkimort said:

Would honestly buy Ursa right now, but am super scared of FPN and noise overall.

I can tell you for certain that the UMPro does not suffer from FPN, unless you do something overly extreme in post. At first I thought I noticed FPN in the camera monitor. Upon playback it was clean as clean. 

33 minutes ago, EthanAlexander said:

So, why can't someone question this reality without being labeled ignorant?

jcs has started a very civilized discussion, and thus far everyone has followed suit. Spinning people's statements is not helpful and will eventually lead to a locked thread. 

Regarding the rest of your post, there are too many rabbit trails there. Maybe we'll get there eventually. But I don't know. If someone can't admit/assume/acknowledge that we are alive, then the discussion is pretty much over.

15 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

Tiffen used to do a piece of editing software/plug in that simulated all of their filters but its now discontinued.

I know the exact software you are referring to. Looked interesting when I saw it. But I'm looking for something before post. Right now I use Filmconvert which helps de-digitize a bit.

14 hours ago, Bizz said:

Check these videos:

https://vimeo.com/kidzrevil

They're from a user of this forum Kidzrevil. He uses tiffen filters (black pro mists and black satins) on his G80 and the image looks great. Check the Lenses thread also, it has some examples of it. 

I think thats what youre looking for.

Yes. Good stuff. Exactly the kind of leads I was looking for. I'll check out his videos. I'm in an area with such bad service that I haven't been able to watch those at the moment. but will later today. 

8 hours ago, Inazuma said:

Search this forum for a thread called Tiffen Ultra Contrast. 

I remember that thread. Did you end up liking the low con filters? Or did you go a different direction?

50 minutes ago, Shirozina said:

Can you define this 'distinct video look'?

No. But I can recognize it. 

37 minutes ago, AaronChicago said:

People are probably sick of me recommending this, but definitely check out Tiffen Digital Diffusion FX 2. It takes the edge off without blooming highllights like the Pro Mist filters.

I was actually hoping you'd jump into the thread with this exact suggestion. I only know about this filter because of you. However, could you point me to a video that used that filter? Other than the Tiffen one. 

6 hours ago, jcs said:

How can we determine if reality is real, a dream, a simulation, or something else?

This is what I meant by game of ignorance. 

And since yes, you are alive. And since yes, you will die. The stakes are high. It seems foolish to jeopardize both of those playing a game of ignorance. 

3 hours ago, jcs said:

Why are the stakes too high?

How do you know this a game of ignorance?

Are you alive? Yes or No?

A race to the bottom. 

Everyone is in a competition to get noticed by talking, posting, preaching etc. 

Doing. No one is doing that anymore. 

I've got the GH5 and Lumix 12-35. Love it. But we all know there is a distinct video look, and I'd like to minimize it. 

I'd start with the lens, but right now I just can't afford that (unless I go with inexpensive FD lenses?).

I have 0 first hand experience with the filters I'm looking into. Promist. Low con. Digital diffusion. 

I'm obviously going for something less digital and more filmic, whatever that means. 

Maybe I should just buy a bunch and test and return the ones I don't like.

Could you point me in the right direction?

1 minute ago, jcs said:

How do you know you're alive? 

How will you know when you are dead?

This is exactly what I mean jcs. The stakes are too high to be playing this game of ignorance. 

1 hour ago, Mastermind said:

Thanks all for the advice. For those who have gone with both native and speedbooster route... what are your thoughts on the value of dual IS for handheld?  Is it a lot more valuable than just IBIS say with a speedbooster? Its just tough to decide between 12-35 and Sigma 18-35.

I have the Lumix 12-35 v1 and love the dual IS. That said, I also have the Sigma 18-35 (Nikon mount) and the single IBIS is great too. Personally I think you could go handheld with either, but that depends on the level of stability you're after. 

Also, the 18-35 is huge. I mean, not really, but it feels oddly heavy on the camera. Totally usable, but something to consider. Also, what Don said about the IBIS focal length thing is very annoying. I've heard the Canon version with the correct Speedbooster can solve this issue, but I don't know first hand. 

The Lumix is not without quirks either though. The focus by wire is not ideal. I've heard it's better on the Oly, but then you're not getting Dual IS. 

Having had this camera now for a bit, I think I would look for vintage prime glass and/or add some filtration to the front to reduce the sharpness and digital look. I'm looking into this now but just completely tapped out financially. The 18-35 with electronic communication speed booster does seem tempting, but it really starts to take away from the charm of the camera. 

Here's a totally just for fun short I just shot with the GH5 and 12-35. All handheld except very first shot. For me this was a test to see how much the size of the GH5 and the IBIS could speed up my shooting and perhaps even make me more creative. I really think those 2 things are liberating. I was able to shoot this in 1 hour. Now I just have to figure out how to expose v-log.

17 hours ago, jcs said:

Great keyword, "likely" which brings probability into the discussion. In the event of no advances in medical science, the state space of your statement could be within that range. However if medical science makes great advances, and those advances are made available to us (vs. kept private/secret), then the state space extends quite a bit more years. So we don't know if that statement is 'true' or not, perhaps we could make a guess based on past advances in medical science, giving us a possibly useful probability of likelihood.

Heisenberg brought to light we can't know anything completely at the lowest levels of physics, with any certainty. And this percolates up to the large scale as well. Douglas Adams had great fun with this concept with the Infinite Improbability Drive in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (read the books- genius and funny too!). The concept of truth, causality, consciousness and reality itself get even weirder with the double-slit and quantum eraser experiments. Combine this with quantum entanglement in general, as well as the apparently quantized nature of 'quantum' physics, and now we have many scientists and philosophers pondering how can the universe "know" in a sense whether there is a conscious observer, or not, and manifest reality accordingly. Folks on the spiritual side of the fence think "God" and on the science side of the fence think "computer simulation". The state space is one, the other, both, or neither. 25% probability for each possible state. There's currently no way to test any of these theories. And again, this entire paragraph is created by an ego and could be completely off the mark as to the 'truth' of the base reality.

You're missing the point. 'When' you and I die is uncertain. 'That' we will die is certain. Like I said before, the stakes are very high.

Where are the other promo videos? There are 2 others, but haven't seen them yet.

1 hour ago, Oliver Daniel said:

it certainly doesn't have the lovely Varicam motion cadence going on, which is expected at this price range.

I don't mean to disrespect your opinion, because I definitely respect it, but you said the same thing about the UM46 motion. I owned that cam for a while, honestly, it produced the best footage I've ever shot or edited personally. EDIT: Not trying to call you out or anything like that Oliver. I'm only suggesting that our first, limited impressions may not be super accurate. And I'm hoping yours aren't.   I'd like this camera to be great.

The more I watch the above, the more I like it. To each his own though. These are just my first initial impressions.

To my still immature eye the colors are fabulous. Skin and, whatever, look awesome. 

What I am discovering is that the feel we generally like has to do with flaws, not with perfection. My favorite singers and bands are not flawless. They have just the right amount of imperfections. Same with art. And maybe same with the quality of film that we attribute cinematic. 

Perhaps the EVA1 is just a little too good. Maybe its our job to introduce imperfections using lenses, filters, lighting, set, post and CC, etc. 

Or maybe that's nonsense. Perhaps recording raw externally will help? 

As is, the EVA1 out of the box is beautiful and tremendously useful for commercial and doc use. I'd love to see what adding some less pristine elements does to the footage.

14 hours ago, jcs said:

Regarding truth, let's play. What is truth, and how do you know anything is true?

The truth is that in 50 to 60 years, most likely sooner, both you and I will be dead. The stakes are high.

21 minutes ago, jcs said:

You're right, in the domain of predicate logic, Boolean algebra, etc.

Here we're talking about human perception of reality itself, and this squirrelly, wet bar of soap known as the ego. A long time friend, who's studied philosophy his whole life (along with his wife), suggested a couple books yesterday after discussing this topic:

Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism "In this modern spiritual classic, the Tibetan meditation master Chögyam Trungpa highlights the commonest pitfall to which every aspirant on the spiritual path falls prey: what he calls spiritual materialism. The universal tendency, he shows, is to see spirituality as a process of self-improvement—the impulse to develop and refine the ego when the ego is, by nature, essentially empty. "The problem is that ego can convert anything to its own use," he said, "even spirituality." His incisive, compassionate teachings serve to wake us up from this trick we all play on ourselves, and to offer us a far brighter reality: the true and joyous liberation that inevitably involves letting go of the self rather than working to improve it. It is a message that has resonated with students for nearly thirty years, and remains fresh as ever today."

and In Search of the Miraculous "Peter Demianovich Ousepnsky (1878-1947) was born in Moscow. He became one of the most important writers on abstract mathematical theory in the early 20th century. Ouspensky searched throughout Europe, Egypt, and the Orient for a teaching that would solve for him the problems of man and the universe. In 1915, in St. Petersberg, he met with George Ivanovitch Gurdjieff, who taught that most humans do not possess a unified mind-body consciousness and thus live their lives in a state of hypnotic "waking sleep", but it is possible to transcend to a higher state of consciousness and achieve full human potential. This is the record of Ouspensky's eight years of work as Gurdjieff's pupil. It combines the logic of a mathematician with the vision of a mystic."

I'll read/listen to them soon. I found this as recommendations from those books via Amazon: Cosmic Trigger I: Final Secret of the Illuminati "The great modern classic of a brilliant rebel's personal exploration into the nature of consciousness. Cosmic Trigger deals with a process of deliberately induced brain change. This process is called 'initiation' or 'vision quest' in many traditional societies and can loosely be considered some dangerous variety of self-psychotherapy in modern terminology. I do not recommend it for everybody...briefly, the main thing I learned in my experiments is that 'reality' is always plural and mutable."

What drew me to that book were comments about 'triggering' and people's egos (see the comments), very relevant as to what happens online and in the world today. I noticed a funny pattern years to, that simply bringing awareness of the ego itself, could cause people to become irrational and angry. Understanding this pattern better is interesting for this ego (mine  ).

 

 

JCS, I love and appreciate the tone of your posts and threads. I have yet to be "triggered" by anything you've said in this thread, or any other that I can remember. 

Regarding truth and fallacies, these are very definitive. They are not mushy or hazy. Sure, it may be difficult at times to find, know, or understand the truth, but that is not the fault of truth. Likewise, fallacies are always fallacies if they are in fact fallacious. 

On 9/12/2017 at 4:44 PM, EthanAlexander said:

Most Truth is found in Paradox.

Is that true?

Regardless, paradox and logical fallacies are different. Fallacies are untrue by definition. 

@jcs, so what I'm about to say could come across antagonistic, I don't mean it that way. Just my observations and I am phrasing them best as I can. 

Quite a few times you suggest that neither you, nor anyone else really know anything. 

1 hour ago, jcs said:

note I'm not saying the Truth

1 hour ago, jcs said:

Once we recognize that pattern, we can stop telling other's we've finally solved it all, that we know the solution, that we known the truth, that we know the Right Way, that we know anything at all.

1 hour ago, jcs said:

And maybe everything I've written here is just another illusion!

1 hour ago, jcs said:

perhaps there is an even better way, I don't know.

If I have understood you correctly, then these are self-defeating statements.

Basically you are saying, 'we don't know anything, and I know this for sure.' That's self-defeating, erroneous logic.

You seem convinced that everything you say, and apparently even Buddha, could be an illusion. Then why continue to preach? 

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you regarding kindness and humility and love. But to even claim these as good is an assertion of truth. And to practice them requires even more truth.

We need truth to even converse. Truth is essential. 

35 minutes ago, Don Kotlos said:

Proselytism is & always has been a big part of most religions, even more so in Christianity that has it in the gospel.

Yes. This is true. 

35 minutes ago, Don Kotlos said:

And for many centuries if you didn't convert you most probably would end up dead, so quite the pressure I would say 

And for many centuries before and after that period, the EXACT OPPOSITE was true. 

Not to mention that Christianity teaches absolutely nothing of putting someone to death for not converting.

To my understanding many many people have borrowed the appearance of Christianity to do unspeakable evil including murder. But not only is this NOT a tenant of Christianity, Christ taught the exact opposite. (Love your enemies, turn the other cheek, pray for those who despise you, etc). 

My only point is that while your history is most likely accurate, history's antagonists have often inappropriately borrowed the name of Christ to do bad stuff that history has then unfairly clumped with Christ. 

I'm also not suggesting you were saying otherwise. I'm just adding it more as a 'for the record' kind of thing.