Jonesy Jones

People miss one thing here: the dawning of HDR. 
They say the display is capable of HDR (whatever that means). HDR metadata can be embedded in HEVC (check). New Apple TV advertizes "4k HDR now! (check). 2017 iMacs deliver 800 nits (check). High Sierra will use HEVC as the new standard compressor (check). 
As I understood, right now there is no real standard for HDR. Apple may have made the decision.

Proselytism is & always has been a big part of most religions, even more so in Christianity that has it in the gospel. And for many centuries if you didn't convert you most probably would end up dead, so quite the pressure I would say   . And here is one modern version of a proselytism park: http://www.holylandexperience.com/
But on the second point I agree, God is yet another attraction point for wandering souls. The problem is that there is an organized path towards just that point. So if you are proselytized from young age, the likelihood of finding Christ later in your life is far greater than chance. Whether that is good or bad, is another discussion. 
Spot on. Initially I just went with trolling & drugs, but your psychoanalysis offers a deeper understanding why he might have done those things in the first place.

I recently made that move, but still haven't settled on just one. I do most of my edits on FCPX and move to Resolve only for fancy coloring. 
FCPX offers great editing experience if you own a mac. Easy, fast & fluid. Thats it. Color grading is a joke unless you spend another $100 on plugins. Resolve shines in color grading, and it is free if the limitations don't affect you. 
If you mostly do editing and only occasionally grade, then FCPX is a good solution. Even more so if you edit on a macbook pro and you don't have an eGPU.
On the other hand if you want to do some serious color grading then Resolve, no question about it. 
I would say start with the free version of Resolve and stick with it for few weeks. Once you are familiar with it, try the trial version of FCPX and you will be at a good place to decide what fits your needs before you spend your dimes. 

I like the imagery from Canon cameras. I dislike the protectionist business model. But nevertheless, Canon continues to reign as number one... So perhaps they know what they are doing. I want to like the C200, but it's comprises are tough to swallow, and I know it would be a love hate affair. We can only hope Panasonic comes to the rescue... 

I work in documentary TV and what I have seen in 5 years is exactly what you are talking about Andrew - a lower/mid budget set up would be C300 and 5Dmk3 and cinema cameras would be sony or arri to now FS7, A7S2 and then a cinema sony or arri.  Canon have LOST a huuuge market with doc makers, everyone is pretty much using FS7s because they are more versatile and shoot beautiful images, they like the A7S2s because they are small, can chuck their EF lenses on it with speedbooster and shoot in crazy low light.  
We had an in house C300 up until recently, but sold it due to it not being used in a year.  We also have a couple of 5Dmk3s and they only get used for stills these days. 
I remember seeing the 1DC on a shoot and thinking how incredible the footage and that this may be how all their cameras would go... but... nope 
I think they got greedy and wanted to push everyone on to their C-1/2/300s, they could have cornered the market! just imagine a 5DC and 1DC line running alongside the still camera lines with all the potential magic lantern unlock .. that massive error twinned with disappointing stills cameras being produced, can't see them keeping their dominance for much longer

Ive seen it, its great. Ive seen all his films many times.
But imho, Scientology, catholic church, tomato, tomato. 
Like I said, I never understood it. A person believing in that alien scientology BS isn't any less trustworthy on cameras to me than one that believe in Jesus "The Spaghetti Monster" Christ.
I look at the images in this life and forget about the photographers after life beliefs
Speaking of religious believes, cults and Leica Colors...
This guy was spreading the lords word (JW) when I past him holding my Leica X1 today.
Didn't have a fast enough shutter for him to be sharp, but the colors are there.
(And it is a helluva sharp lens.)
Its from the Kodak era when all digital camera manufacturers where still trying to match and look like film.
Good times

I have to be honest here. There is always alot of talk about how these cameras are way better than that camera etc. But never any footage. Never any reviews. Never any first hand experience.
Where is this certainty that its so good coming from? Who is the source?
I remember some BS argument when they missed the release date with a year or so. The lack of cameras was said to be because that they couldn't fill orders and all cameras went to the high end Chinese production houses and they didn't have internet or something... give me a break.
I guess Im confused because on this forum their cameras have been brought up in "which camera should I buy threads" as if they've always existed. When in fact they have rarely been for sale at all.
I don't know how many times I've seen the recommendation to buy a "battle tested" camera from them. Well Ive been on that waiting list for almost two years... lol.
I just dont see how this borderline vaporware can be so easy to recommend and compared with so little to no info about using them.
I see about 50 videos on YouTube from recently. On three different models. One or two reviews. And thats from several years. 
Personally I wouldn't take my chanses on this and instead go save with a bigger brand. But that's just me.

Yeah, I get that this camera isn't for everyone, but for those filmmakers interested in narratives... it's a $7000 Alexa. Unbelievable. 

I did read your list. My reaction has to do with this:
The fact that you don't care about which company you buy from, only that your "needs are met," is the reason that big companies can get away with things like false promises and unnecessary crippling of products.
Important: I'm not trying to say that big companies are bad or the system is bad. What I AM saying is that it's ultimately not in our self interest as video/film professionals to keep buying from a company like this. If we vote with our wallets, then we can force these companies to listen to us and give us better options. In fact, it's in the best interest of Canon in the long run, too!
There are dozens of other cameras that you can use. People have made good livings using cameras that didn't have DPAF or internal raw for decades. You WANT this camera. That's fine. I'm not mad and I don't think you're a bad person or anything, I'm just trying to point out how we can enact change (or not).

This is why they'll never learn. They can make false promises and unnecessarily cripple their lower end products and they'll never have negative repercussions. I'm not personally blaming you I'm just using you as an example of the reality of the situation.
I don't care your opinions about Sony and Panasonic cameras, but those two companies actually listen to the community and rarely hold back features on their lower end products.

All while I'm reading this post and thinking "Why has Panasonic crammed so much value into this camera?" at the same time that Canon plays the protectionist game of doling out features on a tiered "pay-as-you-go" system. And then I read this sentence and it all made sense.
"Also the GH5 now has a HEVC H.265 4K mode for HLG added, which allows files to be played directly on home AV equipment compatible with HEVC and HDR, such as Panasonic’s latest HDR TVs."
Panasonic is thinking organically of the whole customer, not just some new camera body. A happy GH5 owner who loves their feature-rich camera also begins to love the brand. We buy lenses and accessories sure, but how about the EVA1 or an HDR capable Panasonic TV to proudly show our new footage. So while Canon and Sony may be thinking Panasonic is foolish to put so much value into a $2,000 mirrorless camera, the new GH5 owners are beginning a new relationship that will eventually show the same loyalty many of us had for Canon for decades.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I used the GH5 exclusively on a client gig last week and never brought the Canon bodies out of the bag!

There are frame guides in this update!

I completely understand this because I think President Trump is an African American Woman because I choose to use a different definition of the words African and Woman. 
What in the hell are you talking about, Ed? You don't get to choose the definition of words to suit your narrative. I know it's a political tactic to do so, but this isn't a political forum.
You know... I also was trying to stay out of this conversation but after reading this nugget, I had to have my one and only reply...
Words have meaning and power.
People can choose to use words incorrectly, but that would make that person ignorant and subsequently make their opinion moot. Or it's deliberate for a very specific political motive. Neither reason is acceptable.
A major issue in our society is the misuse of words and the miscommunication of intent. If you're unsure of the proper definition of a word, look it up. Your argument may become clearer and your points not so divisive. Or maybe you know exactly what these words mean and this aww shucks routine is the character you play?
Trump is a lot of things, but a white nationalist is not one of them. It's a moronic argument used as a scare tactic to like minded people that don't think for themselves.
There are plenty of valid arguments to be made for President Trump or against President Trump, but that ad hoc attack just keeps the narrative and debate in the whacko realms of the Far Left and Far Right and I would rather hear discussions and points made by the rational center, where most humans reside.

For me, it's a great shame the world seems to go from racial and religious division, through political division and onto cultural division so often, like a cycle, and it looks like we're going through one of those phases again, which leads to a world war.
The first thing to happen is the mob mentality, where dissenting voices in the crowd are dismissed even if they might be reasonable and logical.
Be it a far-left uprising or a far-right one, I hate all extremists.
Fighting Nazis is very noble but there are quite a lot who now consider all conservatives or anybody slightly right of centre on certain issues to be flat out evil people. I don't buy that and the Google thing shows that there's a huge, uncontrollable politically correct mob at corporations who can't have an honest debate about certain subjects because they're taboo.

@Ed_David you made your point about B&H, some agree, some disagree, the courts ruled, we're paying attention to these issues, perhaps time to focus on a new issue? Such as how to unite the people away from chaos and war? You have a lot of talent, would love to see a piece by you using the amazing F65 which promotes love, understanding and unity. Tell a story to make people cry with joy, brother  

Why? So we can become even more polarized and you can safely live in the echo chamber of your own head? The benefit of debating is to convince others on the fence to heed your reasoning vs the other debater.
There is no reasoning with someone who tosses out "Trump is a white nationalist" as an absolutism. It's such an illogical foundation for debate that why should anyone who isn't a sycophant even bother. What a waste of time.
Had you started with "Trump doesn't seem care that actual bleeding white nationalists are using his persona to embolden themselves. Here's why I believe that's dangerous" then maybe we could have a productive discussion. Or you could create inspiring art around that. But you didn't, so we won't.

I use Vimeo, but its also in virtu signaling business, they even created a category for Resistance! 
This war is already shaping the environment for content makers. You can't pretend nothing is happening. 

Today a model I am working with brought up the google employee who was fired recently. I had skimmed his article and also saw that mainstream media was outraged and that he was ultimately fired. I asked her if she had read what he wrote, and she replied she had not. So her support of the firing was based solely on reporting by mainstream media (MSM). It took a bit of googling to find his original document: the MSM sources I found had removed all external links and didn't post the original document. Here it is:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf
Here's a couple examples where the external links and all graphics have been removed: http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320 , http://www.wnd.com/2017/08/googles-ideological-echo-chamber/. I didn't check them closely for other deletions and omissions.
As an executive and manager of both small and large corporations, I was made well aware by legal departments what is acceptable and not acceptable practice in the workplace. I believe he put google at major lawsuit risk for writing the following:
The harm of Google’s biases I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:
Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias) Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race. 6 Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.
These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology that can irreparably harm Google.
This post is related to other posts discussing women in the workplace and now I raise the issue of media bias in reporting, which relates to all of us who create filmed media and are trying to help heal our divided country and planet.
From a purely legal risk basis, I understand why google fired Mr. Damore. However, here's the problem for google: if what Mr. Damore wrote isn't true, they could defend themselves, showing that what he wrote isn't accurate. Given what he wrote, firing him might harm google even more. It appears this was an internal document, never meant for public view. The fact that it was released to the public has harmed google, and is now being used as a divisive tool and weapon by the MSM. If what Mr. Damore wrote is true, then some good can come from it to heal division, not just at google but anyone affected by these issues.
I realize that both the extreme Left and Right are just tools for division, and see them for what they truly are. I can see how some of what Mr. Damore wrote could be inflammatory for some individuals, however in his favor he did provide links to other sources which support his statements. Which is why it's very misleading when MSM removes these links (and graphics) from his original document.
Here is what appears to have triggered the Left and the people funding MSM (see his full document for the rest of suggestions and reference notes, there's a lot more):
Why we’re blind
We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change), the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ8 and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social sciences lean left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap9. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs. In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and agreeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and a whiner10. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is being spent to water only one side of the lawn.
This same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness11, which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftist protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silent, psychologically unsafe environment.
Suggestions
I hope it’s clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism). My concrete suggestions are to:
De-moralize diversity. ○ As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.” Stop alienating conservatives. ○ Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently. In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves. ○ Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is required for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company. Confront Google’s biases. ○ I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that. ○ I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture. Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races. ○ These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined. What many of us are seeing is the Left is completely intolerant of any view other than their own, and have been resorting to violence. If one states they are neither Left or Right, the Left calls them Right, and the Right calls them Left. So while the Right might at first seem to be more tolerant, if one is not "on their side" they can be labeled "Left" simply because they are not Right. Fortunately, the well-armed Right hasn't been violent (we can get into "conspiracy theories" with Charlottesville, so perhaps best to agree that so far only the Left has used guns recently).
If we don't start creating counter-momentum of healing the dividing forces, we're headed toward major civil unrest, and we know the government has been preparing for this for a while, so it's best we don't go there.
What does all this mean for us filmmakers/vloggers and video hobbyists posting on YouTube? We can help heal the divisions, by creating content designed to bring people together, to better understand the issues, and to always take a position of understanding, love, and kindness. Metaphors and parables are more effective vs. lecturing (is this post lecturing ?). Think about how to better communicate with those who think differently from yourself. If you are posting online, think twice if you are angry. Understand that anger comes from your own ego, not from external sources, and certainly not from a person who has angered or annoyed you: that's coming from within yourself. Debating online is an excellent place to practice kind debate. Because you can take a moment or a break to think more deeply before replying. And by all means don't drunk post or post when upset in general: that's not the real you.
Peace brothers & sisters  

Nothing at all. Just stirring the pot by tossing around some vague platitudes. Political art should inspire healthy debate. Debating with people like him is like reasoning with a black hole.

I was able to visit the Nashville TN area and took a few images.
There was on and off light pockets of cloud veiling, but I took these as it was getting dark, then darker and when it was emerging.

 

ed, heres a protip: acting like a 5 year old online, under your real name, is a very bad idea. people who might want to hire you based on your good work will start to vet you, and within seconds theylll discover that youre a huge pain in the ass online, and they will wonder: How much worse is he in person?
i thought that maybe youd turned over a new leaf. time to grow up dude

I know that we like to go for low cost solutions but in this case, because easy reliable chroma key is going to be so vital to what you are doing, I'm going to recommend you have a look at the Reflec system.
It has been around for years (it was originally a BBC development) and has also been ridiculously overpriced for years but at the end of the day it does produce good, easy, reliable keying without you having to do anything elaborate lighting or setup wise, which is vital if you are working on your own or with a small team. You can set this up in a few minutes and if you had to then go somewhere else and set it up again and get exactly the same results. 
Basically, it is a piece of reflective material which fires the light from an LED ring that you mount around the lens straight back to the camera which gives you a pretty perfect key without having to worry about lighting the background and the bi-LED versions of the ring mean you can switch from green to blue background instantly. 
It is not absolutely perfect but it is a very easy solution to work with and it means the time and expense of lighting the backdrop can be better spent lighting you.
There are a bunch of different versions of it to suit cameras from palmcorders up to broadcast ones and a lot of different sizes of the background material (including a pop-up round version like a reflector) but something like the Deskshoot Lite kit would be fine with a Panasonic GH camera.
If you hunt around on eBay you can find kits for around £800 and even less. There are also a few knock off versions kicking around as the fabric itself is based on (for which you could read possibly identical) to one made by 3M for safety clothing.
As I say, its not cheap but as what you are doing is solely based on chroma key then it might actually be worth putting money into this rather than say going big on a lens as for your application, my view at least, would be that your audience would spot the deficiencies in the keying long before the lens.
 

I guess the Fuji is way above that price range... but damn is that a nice image...
 

I did one unpaid project helping a friend. Like you, I was curious, so I did a few shots with the GH4 and a few with the blackmagic pocket (pro res)
Both keyed well but the GH4 did better I think. Resolution definitely seems to be a factor. Used the GH4 again on a paid greenscreen gig with a much better lighting setup. Owner of the production company even commented on how good the keying was, and I didn't really have to work for it in post. Was pleasantly surprised with how well the GH4 does with greenscreening. I imagine the GH5 will be even better.
I kind of wish I tried raw on the pocket, though. A co worker at that same company showed me some tests with his BMCC on a greenscreen, and the raw seemed to do much better than the pro res, especially with tricky spots like long, messy blond hair.
Still, I'd lean towards GH5. 

Yeah, even take Vimeo Staff Picks for example... how many of the comments relate to the production of the video... what camera was used, what lens, what was your post workflow, etc...?
Filmmakers love films, so that will be a built in audience in any DIY filmmaking endeavor... be it a short film, feature, or more specific to what you're interested in... self-distributed no/low/micro-budget films. 
Of course, this is just a theory that I have never put into practice, but I would think it would be something to consider when designing and marketing your projects.