tugela

On ‎2017‎-‎10‎-‎07 at 5:04 PM, Damphousse said:

Oh, sh-t.  I didn't realize they spent that much on marketing.  Ouch.

They didn't. That is the "creative accounting" figure that they came up with to write off against profits so they minimize or eliminate tax.

On ‎2017‎-‎10‎-‎07 at 12:42 PM, Andrew Reid said:

 

I just wish I was more a fan of the overall cinema experience of people munching stinking nachos in your fucking ear whilst talking constantly. (To be fair this isn't as common in Berlin as some other places but I lucked out and got to sit next to a dirty old corporation man on a date with his 18 year old intern)

What is wrong with 18 year old interns? Jealous? I bet he thought he lucked out as well, but not because he was sitting next to you.

Is that so?

On ‎10‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 9:21 AM, Liam said:

So, for image quality for the most common type of film, I guess, it's very near its peak. We don't need more resolution, nor dynamic range, if you shoot it right. Film was plenty good more than 70 years ago

 

Glad you think so.

IMO IQ still has quite a way to go on pretty much every camera available to today. General home viewing devices are on an upward tick in terms of size, something that is going to continue going forward, and your "good enough" today is going to look pretty crappy when the average home rocks 80"+ retina screens. The future of general viewing is going to be a more immersive experience, that means much bigger higher resolution screens (so that it covers more of the field of view) but also VR (which will have resolution and precision requirements way higher than what we have today). The cameras we have today are inadequate for that, their IQ is too crude.

We are not done equipment wise by a long shot. If you think that you are being short sighted and don't get where the industry is heading.

Contemporary equipment is all you need for the past, but not enough for the future. We don't live in the past and are heading for the future, so the answer is that todays cameras will NOT be the end camera for anyone.

11 hours ago, IronFilm said:

It carries on existing as the stills camera which Sony targets to videographers. 

If you shoot video, you want it. 

What planet are you living on? Most camcorders/compacts do *not* have an electronic variable ND. 

With the FS5 and FS7 mk2 being a couple of notable exceptions. 

I agree with you about the a7 and a7R series. Not going to happen!

But there is a very slim chance an a7S successor might!

However, it is probably a similarly slim low odds as it getting 10bits :-/ 

Actually, they do

Most camcorders and compacts are consumer products, and the "ND" used is actually an electronic filter, which is a lot easier and cheaper to implement than a mechanical filter.

The a7S series is a lowlight camera, it is not only intended for video, there are stills applications as well. Putting some sort of moving filter close to the sensor would have unacceptable consequences for IQ, so it is not going to happen. And that is ignoring the spatial implications of doing something like that in front of a FF sensor in a a7 body. You would have to completely redesign the body into something like the EOS-C cameras to do it, only larger.

There is no particular reason why a a7III series camera would not get 10 bit. The main restriction preventing it is the available processor bandwidth, and if the new cameras come with a new processor they may very well be capable of doing that.

4 hours ago, IronFilm said:

The effort to produce a good 2hr long episode means you might as well make a feature film instead!!

It depends what the subject matter is. But, if you are making money off it, you want it to run as long as possible without losing the viewer. It depends on what you are shooting of course and how entertaining you are. And you need to produce real content, not the same thing going on forever.  Probably not two hours, but certainly 30 minutes a week is entirely doable if you are doing this full time and should be a minimum target.

On ‎9‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 2:47 PM, IronFilm said:

You've got to be joking

No.

On ‎9‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 8:58 PM, rdouthit said:

If you want to be successful on YouTube you need to have a regular, unbroken, never-ending schedule of content that retains viewers more than other videos in the genre. That's all the algorithm cares about (currently). If you want to just post for fun, that's fine. But don't expect to make a dime or get more than 1000 views unless you tailor your content to the needs of the algorithm. (I've been a YouTube partner since 2006) If you post a single series and that's it, it will just sit there and be buried by the algorithm. Nobody but your friends and parents will ever see it.

Correct. Unless you have very frequent updates you will never get enough volume to generate enough adds to make sufficient income to make it worthwhile.

Either very frequent updates, or very long ones (since those generate multiple adds). The long ones are ideal because presumably your audience is watching and consequently can't avoid the adds. You do need to be entertaining enough to make that happen though, just adding length for the sake of length won't work.

Why would you want an internal ND if you didn't need to have one? The closer these things get to the sensor, the more likely they are to create distortions and interfere with IQ. Maybe that is OK for something like video, but not for stills. Aside from the fact that an internal mechanical ND (as opposed to the electronic "ND" that most camcorders and compacts have) would have to be large to cover a FF sensor, and that would add a LOT to the size of the camera.

On ‎9‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 1:57 PM, Jonny said:

It is pretty good but the focus throw is a too short.

Modern AF lenses with geared focus typically have very short throw distances since they are not designed with manual focus in mind, so if you are trying to get critical focus (as would be the case if you were using manual focus) they can be very tricky to use.

A wired lens should allow for massive throw distances if you do it slowly and evenly. Obviously there is technique involved and some element of skill on the part of the operator - you can't just twist the focus ring without thought if you want it to be consistent. For getting critical focus a wired lens is far superior to any modern geared lens. 

For geared lenses if you want decent throw distances you pretty much have to use pre-AF old glass. Modern geared glass is crap for that.

On ‎9‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 1:35 PM, MountneerMan said:

Saddam, I can collaborate tugela's point. I live in Vancouver Canada and I went into two different Samsung stores back before the NX1 was dead and neither of them sold any cameras and the people working there never heard of the NX1.

Just curious, were you at Van Dusen gardens a few weeks back? I bumped into another photographer there and we were talking about the NX1.

On my NX1 I attach the extra grip when using the 16-50mm S lens, since the lens protrudes below the body and it does not have a tripod collar like it's longer sibling. It lifts the camera clear of the bridge. Otherwise you have to mount the camera far forward on the slider and it unbalances the head. If there is any sort of attachment like that for your camera, you could use that. Even a grip for a completely different body might work, since they all use the tripod screw at the base of the camera to attach anyway. It would look a little odd, but it should do what you need.

At least two hours per episode. Minimum.

On ‎9‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 12:12 PM, jcs said:

Inspiration on so many levels!

Even if the underlying story is ridiculous. If dogs were carrying some disease, they would be put down, not banished to some island.

Broadway camera did offer to do a special order if I wanted it, but apparently stuff done that way is non-returnable. I didn't try Lens&Shutter or Kerrisdale, but I imagine they would have done a similar thing if asked. At that point London Drugs did not have the NX1 or S lenses on their web site, although they did list them later. Whenever I looked they were always special order though, with no stock at local stores. Since there was apparently extremely limited (and possibly no) stock in Canada who knew when or if the camera would arrive, so I opted not to do a special order and instead just waited and monitored web sites until someone had physical stock. As I said, The Camera Store had them in stock, so I ordered from them. I did the same for my 50-150mm lens, basically waited for it to show up on their web site as in stock, then ordered it immediately. Even with The Camera Store, they were frequently out of stock in the first 6 months or so (later they usually had bodies or kits available). I'm not sure if it was due to high popularity or them only have one or two units and not being able to restock them readily once sold. There can't be many copies of the NX1 in Canada however.

22 hours ago, MountneerMan said:

They sold it at several London drugs around Vancouver.

Actually after the time of death was more or less declared on the NX London drugs put the NX1 pro kit on clearance for a really good deal I think it was only $2,300CAD or something cant remember exactly.

 

EDIT: Just to clarify London drugs is a chain of stores in BC that sells everything from bread to computers and as far as I know, they have no connection to the city of London. I just realized this might be confusing.  http://www.londondrugs.com

They had it on the web site as a special order, they did not actually stock it as far as I could tell. The only camera from the final generation that they physically had was the NX500, there were the odd store that had one of those on site. They did physically have the non-S lenses to some extent, as did some Best Buy stores (who also sold older generation Samsung cameras, but not the NX1).

I got mine from The Camera Store, which, as far as I could determine, was the only place in Canada that physically stocked them. But they were not listed as an official distributor, I don't know where they got their cameras. When I tried registering my NX1 with Samsung Canada the serial number came up as non-existent, although it did have a Canadian part number, which was a bit unsettling. 

Some other camera stores across the country did have Samsung cameras (and were listed as distributors by Samsung), but they were in the process of discontinuing Samsung equipment when the NX1 was announced. Samsung marketing apparently was unaware of this, or simply didn't care, lol.

One of the places that Samsung listed as a source of the NX1 was a sound store about 20 meters from where I live, and I know for a fact that store has never sold cameras at all, only audio equipment. So go figure.

From what I could see and in retrospect it seems clear that Samsung were in the process of discontinuing their photography business even when they announced and released the NX1. I think the limited marketing that they were doing in some markets was purely an exercise to sell off units that they had already manufactured, but they didn't publically say that because then no one would buy the stock. 

On ‎9‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 12:16 PM, Amazeballs said:

I have G85 and I just wonder how much of this wonderful camera potential has been realized and I have a strong feeling that both GX85 and G85 are heavily bottle necked by Panasonic firmware, not hardware. 

For example, G85 processor is faster than G7, but all the frame rates are the same. No 96 fps, not even 72 fps. Even crop is better than on GH4 - 2.2 instead of 2.3. That's again means faster processor. So 96 should be possible, but we have pitiful 60 fps, same as on 2 year old model (G7). Even my sluggish GX7 had 60 fps FHD and it was way way slower then G85 in every way. 

Then, we have those wonderful focus transitions on GH5, and nobody else has them. Why? Its a simple software feature. If a new iphone gets an update with a new feature - all the iphones get it. Ok, not the oldest one, but 4-5 generations get it. And Panasonic has it only on ONE camera. It would be logical an fair to its customers to spread this as an update for all their cameras produced at least in last couple of years. 

Renewed autofocus on GH5. Make an adopted improved version for other cameras as well. Its an algorithm. All your cameras suffer from bad AF, everyone knows that. So give them a little boost with a firmware update. Didnt hear any movement in that direction. 

V-log, why its an option for GH cameras only? Is there any hardware limitation? No. So why? Give users an option. You even sell it for 100$ and still dont let them use it. That hilarious actually. 

And I can continue. And you can as well. 

I feel that unless you dont buy the most expensive Panasonic Lumix camera you dont get the same first class treatment package as you do by jumping on GH bandwagon. And I dont like it. I want to buy GH5 or 6 when I will know that I do actually need it, that my needs have grown enough to justify this purchase and not cos Panasonic limited my current camera functionality with a firmware here and there, forcing me to switch, manipulating and making me feel like I am the person whos requests and wishes are not being taken into account.  

Besides all that I really struggle to understand why there is no official Panasonic forum for discussing all that. 

Wuf.. Ive spoken out my mind finally)

Curios to know what other ppl think of that. 

Because the encoding is done in hardware and frame rates determined by the sensor read rate. The speed of the processor does not mean a whole lot of those two parameters are the same.

People seem to think that it is all software, but most of these limitations that so many fret about are in the hardware, not the firmware.

They are both crap compared to a real camera.

That said, the Samsung appears marginally better, although it should be pointed out that the Samsung is clearly using active stabilization whereas the Apple is not.

13 hours ago, Saddam said:

I would disagree with you on the points that Samsung's own store did not sell them and the employees who worked there never heard of NX1.

I worked at Samsung's OWN store as a sales associate in London where we have seen the NX1 and got trained on it month before the release of this camera. I was the first person to sell the NX1 on the launch day.

I bought the NX1 (display unit) that was being used in the store as training purposes by us and to show customers after the store shut down on December 23rd.

I'm still using it and I bought another NX1 just few months ago to use it as backup or B-cam.

Used the NX1 last month on a wedding. The footage came out astonishing. I also had the Sony A7S II, but it was resting inside the bag most of the time. Prefer to shoot with the NX1 more.

Maybe that was the case in London but it sure as hell was not the case in Vancouver. I tried. Samsung's stores and employees apparently had never heard of the camera, even though Samsung issued a press release announcing that it was available in Canada and even though it was featured on their own web site (which was basically a copy of the US page). It was pretty obvious that Samsung was making no effort whatsoever to actually sell the NX1 here.

On ‎9‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 2:54 AM, Andrew Reid said:

Choose 10bit or 12bit then

This isn't North Korea.

Soon it will be.

18 hours ago, Jonesy Jones said:

 My understanding of what JCS is saying is that all film, even modern, is not as precise as digital. In other words, film is mechanical, not electronic, and therefore there are some extremely subtle variances to the way it records.  These variances could be both temporal and positional. Unlike digital which will be perfect.  I don't think we're talking about massive skipping and stuttering, I think we're talking about nearly imperceptible flaws that make a film feel alive the way digital, video, often does not. 

You mean makes film look not alive, as in unnatural. Alive is how we see the world, and there is no stuttering, micro or otherwise, in real life.

This is the same argument people make about vinyl, where imperfections create a different flawed sound that does not reproduce a real performance. People think it is "better", but really it is just an affection for a past era using the Luddite assumption that things were better in the old days.

5 hours ago, mercer said:

Interesting... those 5 extra degrees made a difference? Did you test that on the Micro, when you had it, with similar results?

I strongly doubt that anyone would be able to tell the difference with such a small change in shutter speed.. 

3 hours ago, jcs said:

It would appear the primary factor in motion cadence would be the clock / sampling interval. If the sampling interval is perfect, e.g. each frame sampled at very close to 1s/23.976, that will have different a perception vs. a system with temporal jitter. It would seem film would have some temporal jitter, vs. a digital system would could be a lot more precise. The question is what 'looks better' and if temporal jitter is helpful, how would a digital camera implement it? (statistical sampling: average interval, variance, magnitude etc.). Likewise, if temporal jitter is pleasing, why aren't there post tools which specifically address this? (I've seen film effects which 'damage' footage, however nothing so far that subtly creates temporal jitter based on specific camera systems in the same way e.g. Film Convert works for color/grain).

With a precise motion pattern, cameras could be measured for temporal jitter / motion cadence (it would appear that cameras with genlocks could be jittered live).

Why would anyone want film to look flawed in the way it was in the early days due to imprecise mechanical effects? That has nothing to do with quality and is just an affection to some sort of antique appearance. Sort of like some furniture is deliberately "distressed" to make it look antique or rustic even though it is not.

On ‎9‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 7:32 AM, Damphousse said:

Why not?  Plenty of scientific papers prove that diversity in and of itself is a good thing.  You wouldn't read a diverstiy of books?  You wouldn't eat a diversity of foods?  You wouldn't travel to a diversity of places?  Why do all these gymnastics to fight common sense?  We spend our whole lives seeking diversity but when it comes to people all of a sudden OH NO we must avoid it?

When it comes to efficiency and productivity the only thing that matters is ability and competence, nothing else. Companies that hire less able and less competent people purely to meet some arbitrary diversity goal are going to less efficient and less productive as a result. That might be fine in a non-competitive business environment, such as a government service organization for example, but for companies that face real cut throat competition it is a recipe for failure. That is why places like Apple and all those other tech companies have the appearance of promoting diversity but behind the scenes it is ability that predominates. And yes, I know we don't live in a perfect world, some incompetent people will slip through, but in general a company that is lean and mean will have far fewer of those.

The issue of diversity and discrimination comes up when hires and promotions are made IN SPITE of ability and experience. When you are making personnel decisions based purely on your desire to have a priority for a particular gender or race, it is just as bad no matter what side of the line you are standing on.

On ‎9‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 8:51 AM, maxotics said:

I'm not sure Andrew's server could take the load of a thread dedicated to "white wronged husbands", if that's the right translation?   If he can, sign me up  When I had children I expected them to rebel.  I never imagined that I'd deal with weeks worth of wrath because I forgot to call one of my daughter's 15-year old friends "he" (because the girl identified that way).  Then all the lectures I received from my daughter's cabal about the rights of their gender identity--fluid, transgender, bigender, pangender, etc.  I eventually went  ""vit kränkt man" on them.  That earned me another few months of stink-eye.  

I had a friend who went to visit Japan.  I said, how was it, did they talk to you.  "Only when I did something wrong" he said dryly.  The country is almost as nutty as North Korea--and I don't say that lightly    Decades ago the world has moved past (though hardly a dead issue of course) female rights to gender rights.  And yet Nikon Asia marketing, the very people who should be aware of what's socially acceptable, pick an all-male group to represent a camera?  Is the phrase "what planet are they on?"  an exaggeration?

 

 

It could be that the people swarming the stores for the latest high tech gadget are, for the most part, not female (you might comment on why that is from a social point of view, but it is a fact), and that the Nikon execs are, for the most part, a pragmatic bunch.

On ‎9‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 1:15 PM, BTM_Pix said:

Its alright, Nikon have put last week's PR clangers behind them by coming up with a whole different one to start this week with.

A Nikon director of R&D has given quite a candid interview in China and come out with this :

"Nikon customer base is very broad, from novice to enthusiasts to prosumer to professional, that’s Nikon’s advantage. Olympus, Sony and Fujifilm can only cover a small part of that. So far there is no professional using their products. So when they develop products, even like retro style, they only try to meet these people and that’s only what they can do. Their customer base is limited anyway so they have limited view in developing products."

And concluded on this really inspiring note :

"...before A9 was introduced, Sony went through a lot failure internally. Nikon has a lot more failure experience than Sony."

https://nikonrumors.com/2017/09/15/new-interview-with-tetsuro-goto-from-nikon-full-frame-is-the-trend-if-nikon-will-go-mirrorless-it-must-be-full-frame.aspx/#ixzz4sy7LQksS

 

Lol....like those vapourware RX100 clones they announced, then failed to be able to actually manufacture.

Apparently Nikon considers failure normal. Sony, who made equivalent products, however did NOT fail. 

On ‎9‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 1:48 PM, Mattias Burling said:

Sorry if I offended you, it was just a joke.

I just couldn't carry on the debate because I dont believe your moms story to be exactly true.

Im NOT calling her a liar.

Its just that statistically she has been discriminated against several times through out her career. Be it salary, missed opportunities, asked to get coffee, etc.

And saying all is fine because of this one person and ignoring the bigger picture is a major part of the problem.

Nikon did nothing wrong because this one woman in another part of the world doesn't "feel" discriminated against at her workplace.

Again, sorry if my joke struck a nerve.

BTW, if you want to discuss journalism Im in. I even have a degree in it plus years of working experience as a radio reporter.

Well, I have been discriminated in the past several times in my career as well, as in salaries, missed opportunities, asked to get coffee etc. But I am a guy. So, if it happens to a guy, it is considered "normal", but if it happens to a girl it is "discrimination"? What is good for the goose is surely good for the gander.

On ‎9‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 12:58 AM, Mattias Burling said:

This sort of talk is simply not true. Not even the part about profit since its proven that a diverse company are more efficient and makes more profit than one that's not.
They hire men because they are men.

On another note,
Why people still deny reality and go of into fantasy land I will never understand. It cant be because of an orange president, it must be some sort of gender fanboy mechanism.

 

No, they hire mostly men because the majority of applicants for those positions are men.

Rolling shutter can't be worse than the frame rate, its physically impossible.

I liked the new look as well.

If your display does not automatically adjust it's frame rate to match the input rate, without things like Truemotion enabled, whatever you are looking at is going to have god-awful judder.  That is the whole purpose of having that functionality in a TV. If you have something like a decoder box on your TV, that process is happening automatically anyway due to the way long GOP encoding works. The footage is not individual frames, but a series of frames interspersed with a set of motion data. Your TV's truemotion takes that a step further by converting the 60 fps your box is delivering to 120 or 240Hz through a similar process, primarily for fast moving subject matter like sports.