Jonesy Jones

Well that's why you have a legitimate password. And if you think you wont be able to pay you download all of your files and back them up some other way (which would probably cost significantly more than whatever the yearly fee is). I dunno, unless you're enemies with mr. Robot , I don't see it as a bigger risk than backing it up yourself. 

Consider Amazon cloud storage. Unlimited cloud storage for like a hundred bucks a year.

SD / CF cards / USB memories:
Very resilient form of memory - there's lots of stories of cameras ending up soaked in water where the photos have been able to be read once the cards have dried up. The one weak part is the storage controller chip. If the controller dies - you can't access the memory by yourself unless you know your way around electronics really well and can hook up a 3rd party memory controller. Rarely the memory itself goes bad unless there's serious damage (like a fire) - so data rescue companies will likely be able to rescue data - for a price.
 
Blu-ray:
I've had properly stored DVD-R's and CD-R's have their data layers falling off for no reason after less than 10 years of storage (some of these failed ones were even expensive high-end brands marketed for their durability for long-term storage - while the cheapo brands have fared just as well). Most of the disks stored in the same manner for the same time period have had no issues at all. Due to this kind of random failure I think you'll never know beforehand which brands are safe to buy - or which batches from a brand that are ok. Hence I wouldn't recommend Blu-ray discs unless you do two copies every time. BD-R's on the other hand are very cheap - but if you got large projects you'll need to split them up on several discs.
 
SSD:
SSD's are actually same price or in general cheaper in price/GB than SD cards or USB memories. Very resilient memory - same thing applies as for other types of flash memory, the storage controller is the part that can fail. Even if storage controller fails, data should be possible to recover by data recovery companies - for a price.
 
Conventional hard disks:
The price/GB is still many times cheaper for hard disks than most other medias (BD-R's beat them, some tapes for tape drives might too). Due to hard disks often failing, and due to their fairly low price/GB - I'd recommend a NAS solution with proper redundancy. Redundancy means - should a hard disk in a NAS break, you don't lose data and don't need to find some means of recovery. You just insert a new hard disk and let the disk array rebuild. I'd recommend a NAS that has RAID-6 (2-disk redundancy) and at least 5 hard disks for longterm storage. The initial cost will be bigger, but for larger amounts of data and large projects this solution will win considered storage/price. Conventional large capacity hard disks will likely get ever cheaper the coming years due to larger & cheaper SSD's, until hard disks finally go extinct as a storage medium - in about 5-10 years.
 
Conclusions:
- If your data amounts that you want to put away for long-term storage is small - say, 500 GB per year, some flash-based memory will probably do fine. If your needs are larger than 4-5TB per year or so, I'd definitely recommend a NAS-based solution.
- If you know your projects will fit inside the size limit of BD-R's so you don't need to split discs - they're a very cheap solution, even if you burn double copies of the project for safe storage.

I'm using SD cards to archive projects these days. If I need to transfer them to anything in 10 or 15 years it's easier than bluray and more dependable than spinning drives. Costco has Sandisk cards really cheap.
Though I haven't revisited anything that I've archived, not once. I wonder how long I'm actually going to keep this stuff, stacks of drives or hundreds of bluray disks just isn't practical for me. 

Hey - I'm no Blackmagic lover, but even I can see that if you expose your shots properly both cameras are entirely usable. All cameras have their flaws, and let's be real - the Epic is (or was) $30k just for the brain versus the URSA which is what - $6k? (can't keep up with BM's pricing these days) So you'd hope there's going to be a difference.
All I'm saying is - despite the fact that REDs have been used on countless high end productions over the past 8 years, it's not like the REDs are flawless. RED have suffered immensely from corrupt files, camera crashes, high amounts of noise (especially early releases of Dragon), and overall unreliability - not to mention overheating and the noisy fan, boot up times on the RED One, buggy firmware releases etc. etc.
I once ACd on a RED that had to be re-booted about every 3 hours because it would just shit itself. Then there's the REDs that wouldn't boot up unless you plugged the VF Lemo cable in, pressed the red button, pulled it out, pressed the red button again, and then plugged it back in...
You can get great images out of a RED, and many of its bugs have been ironed out over firmware and hardware upgrades... But to suggest that it hasn't had its problems is disingenuous - especially when they've been out in the wild for about 8 years... unlike BM

http://admiringlight.com/blog/the-sliding-scale-of-camera-capabilities/
That applies 100% to video. 

Interesting to see how Canon was a killer, democratizing the industry for stills and then for video (5D2) by releasing affordable devices with pro features. 
Such a shame it is not the case anymore. What changed at Canon? 
All of this because of their Cine line   I hate it, and hate all of you who are buying C100, C300, C500 that make money to Canon and make them cripple the 7Ds/5Ds bodies for us non professional ... 
Without this Cine line, we would get a 5D4 with 4K with great bitrate and Canon Log - DPAF and so on.......
I still think 5D4 will have 4K unlike many of you (don't imagine how a body can come in 2016 without 4K, that would be non imaginable) when even iPhones get 4K. 
But it will probably a 5D3 like video, which means not clean, poor bitrate, no HFR, ...
Anyway. 

Limited usefulness due to the massive crop. Next please... 

I do a bunch of narrative work as well - shot a narrative film two years - thanks for that
 
here's some of my narrative work:  the three below shot on the f35 and red one mx which are about $4k now used
 

It doesnt look Medium Format, which is weird, I dont really like the footage at all, it looks amateurish, need to see another video...

OK, I don't get it. Looks soft, contrasty, and over-saturated. Sadly, even the models look like addicts, usually they make up for the footage. Those of you wowed by this, could you explain in specific terms what you liked? I mean specific terms, not generic stuff like "pleasing," "filmic," or "natural."

I'm with you guys. Not really blown away either. I know it's Leica and it's expensive, but that doesn't justify getting a wow from me. They've put a whole shooting team on that and that's what the best you can get out of the camera? Not so sure then... yeah, you get nice sharp subjects against a creamy flowy backdrop, but other than that there's hardly more charm to that footage than something RAW shot with a 5DmkIII or so.

I've heard the rolling shutter is terrible in 4K mode.
The sensor has a crop factor of 0,8x compared to fullframe. The fastest Leica S lenses are f/2.5. In terms of DOF, any fullframe camera can give you the same DOF with f/2 lenses...
I really can't see what's special about that sample clip uploaded in 720p. Could've been shot with a Canon 550D, some good lenses and the help of a good colourist.

Which Hoya NDs did you have? Their ProND line is very good. But their others, not so much. If you want a variable ND, I've have very good experiences with SLR Magic's. In this video I compared it to the Tiffen VariND.
 

FWIW, I shot a small project for a friend yesterday.  
No budget and a favor.  Since the stakes were pretty low and everything was casual, I shot it with the EM5II and an old manual 55mm Canon f1.2 FD lens ($200ebay).  The lens was mounted on the cheap Chinese speed booster ($100eBay).
Love the old glass so far.  Really like the renderings I get from it.  And it's radioactive!  So that's cool.
Anyway, 95% is the EM5II handheld and that FD lens, with a few random shots from a 5D.
Here it be @720 for your discriminating consideration.  I feel like I'm getting good value out of the speed booster old lens combo:

updated the comparator, it is now "Il Comparatorre".. bigger pictures, updated layout. 

Its easy, just multiply the sensor width by the anamorphic extension (i.e. 1.3X, 2X...). 
For example a 50mm on FF with a 2x adapter has a 72 deg FOV. 

I am glad you like it. 
There is a simple formula: horizontal FOV = 2 * atan(0.5 * sensor width / focal length)
But there are plenty of online calculators like this one: http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm
Here are some on FF:
20mm --> 84deg
28mm --> 65deg
35mm --> 54deg
50mm --> 40deg
85mm --> 24deg
 

My wife and I went to Spain a few years back to make a humble, simple, and impressionistic travel film; labor of love sort of thing.  
We were going to shoot it with multiple cameras/lenses... but when we got there and spent a few week on a paid assignment before our personal film making, we began to debate about the visuals --and ultimately decided that the most cohesive look would be to film with one camera and one 50mm lens.  Nothing else.  No audio or tripod even.
So we put all the other gear in storage and went into our shoot with a 5D and an old piece of Nikon glass. 
Also, we'd film it, for better or worse, with the max aperture., f1.4.  Our reasoning was that since the subject was supposed to be a reverent and sometimes mystical experience, the aesthetic of shallow DOF would heighten that sense.
In the end I believe it worked well enough, but I've never shot a project like that before or since.  Doubt I will again.  It just happened to fit the vibe.

It would be great if everybody used degrees for FOV instead of focal lengths. 
50mm on FF ~ 40 degrees horizontally. 
Then as the cheapest possible director's viewfinder, I have measured the angles between my fingers and I place my eye on the imaginary crossing line of the two fingers that are closer to the FOV that I want to achieve. 
 

I'm...aware...

My point was that it's possible to like the same focal length on two different formats. I like 50mm lenses on everything but FF. Can't say why.

http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1580
http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2505
http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=21447
http://reduser.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-2061.html
My personal favorites are:
35-40mm equiv--wide shots and steadicam
70-75mm equiv--medium close-ups and general use
135-150mm equiv--intense close-ups, shallow focus/macro, and compressed perspective shots

I find the really wide angles hard to use effectively, distractingly dramatic with their perspective, and unpleasant on people shots. Generally, I use my 75mm (25mm SLR Magic on the BMPCC) the most, because my movies are heavy on acting and dialogue. 

But that's just me. If that last thread taught me anything, it's that there's many different ways to shoot, and all can produce cinematic results. Malick loves his wides. Deakins stays between 28 and 50 for everything. Ridley Scott shoots everything crazy long. Park Chan-Wook shot everything with normal lenses on Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance but used nothing but wides and teles for Oldboy.

As long as you choose your focal lengths with tact and intention, there's no wrong answers--only different preferences. 

Nope... unfortunately, the world doesn't work that "simply."
 
Sometimes the best things succeed, but a lot of the time they don't (especially in this current age of mediocrity).  That's why Oracle is so prevalent in spite of mass dissatisfaction with its products... that's why lobbyists influence laws and government projects (in the USA)... that's why we have to listen to Miley Cyrus, Justin Bieber and Kanye West, instead of artists as talented as the Beatles or Burt Bacharach.
 
 
Nevertheless, Chrome is free and it has more users than its proprietary counterparts.  Since you mentioned a web browser, how about Firefox?  Off the top of my head, there's also Android, Thunderbird, Wordpress, Audacity, VLC, Handbrake and Blender, etc.  Of course, there is a bunch of open source software that dominates network and web installations, such as Apache, MySQL, SSL, Drupal  and PHP, etc., not to mention most of the prominent programming languages.
 
 
No need to apologize.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

heh-heh...

Not really.
 
Yes.  This is the typical FUD scenario -- early adopter of Red Hat, then got disinterested.  I've never used Red Hat.
 
 
That's fine.  I would rather have open source and free software.
 
 
Disagree wholeheartedly.  With open source and free software, I can do almost anything that can be done with proprietary software.  Furthermore, open source software often can do more than proprietary software, as a lot of the innovation occurs in open-source code.
 
I would rather use software from a coder who is enthusiastic than from one who is merely drawing a paycheck.

A Linux beta of Resolve 12 is available as a free download.