bunk

Thanks to the morse code speed of my internet here it will be file in the singular.
And even then, the X-T3 might be released before it finishes uploading it.

Might be an interesting test once you have the original file in your hands and not the compressed version with huge(!) macro blocks on the wall that you can download as "original".

I have those same legs and they weigh a freaking ton. And it's really not that easy to set it up either. Now once it is set up it is sturdy as hell, but...  And I don't think the 3063 Head is really even a real Fluid head. They are more of a industrial head, meant to take a beating. I have heard very few good reviews on it working well for heavy video use.
I mean sure for the money pretty hard to beat one though. But you are looking at 15 pounds of tripod and head here to move around. It will be a hump trust me. I have found with the legs to NEVER have the camera on them before you get it set up. The legs can spread out almost all the way to the ground, which is a good thing when you Want That to happen, but it can tip over too damn easy for my liking!! They are good legs and a accident waiting to happen all at the same time.
But the center column is sturdy as hell even almost fully extended. It really is a Photo tripod, not video legs. Just be damn careful. and don't get in a hurry with them. No way you can kill the damn tripod, will it to your great, great grandchildren they are built that good. I mean it is a Hell of a tripod for nearly no money.

From the quote
 

Thanks for sharing. This not OOC footage is it? It looks recompressed, but I could be wrong. Nevertheless nice to grade.

Yikes that one on the left looks like a baby Tape Worm!!!

This link might be usefull.
bmpcc exposure

You either have a bad memory or you didn't read the thread. The simulation wasn't created for you. Matthias denied what Timotheus wrote...
He is talking about the math behind it.

No you cant. Look at the Tony Northup frame I posted. It clearly proves that you can replicate the image from a large sensor in the way YOU earlier suggested.
I tell you what. Take the three lenses and sensor sizes you listed in your first post. Take three photos from the same distance of the same subject. A person with a background similar to the example I posted.
I will give you $100 it they turns out exactly the same. 
tweak likes this
As you can read Matthias suggest it can't be done the way You Timotheus suggest. In other words the math is being denied. 
That's why the simulation was created as it removes the imperfection of the lenses. Meantime the math is no longer the point of discussion, or so it seems.
Film is not reality. Even more so in this day and age, as there are more and more CG generated movies produced. A reality you will have to live with.
@ Matthias, still waiting for the $100,-. btw I settle for a lens.
...and btw I dig this thread and the adapter results.

You either have a bad memory or you didn't read the thread. The simulation wasn't created for you. Matthias denied what Timotheus wrote...
He is talking about the math behind it.

No you cant. Look at the Tony Northup frame I posted. It clearly proves that you can replicate the image from a large sensor in the way YOU earlier suggested.
I tell you what. Take the three lenses and sensor sizes you listed in your first post. Take three photos from the same distance of the same subject. A person with a background similar to the example I posted.
I will give you $100 it they turns out exactly the same. 
tweak likes this
As you can read Matthias suggest it can't be done the way You Timotheus suggest. In other words the math is being denied. 
That's why the simulation was created as it removes the imperfection of the lenses. Meantime the math is no longer the point of discussion, or so it seems.
Film is not reality. Even more so in this day and age, as there are more and more CG generated movies produced. A reality you will have to live with.
@ Matthias, still waiting for the $100,-. btw I settle for a lens.
...and btw I dig this thread and the adapter results.

I might want to add that there was something 'fishy' going on. Turned out that the 422 10bit version I downloaded was in reality a 420 8 bit version. Emmanuel Pampuri replaced the file some what later and you can now download the correct version. It holds up way better. The "problem" remains, but doesn't jump in your face anymore.

I remember Northrup being ridiculed here on this forum. JCS was the  one who came to his “defense” and made the article he linked to in his post one page back. It’s simple math, it’s how things work.
It’s not a coincident that Houdini, Max, Maya, SoftImage, Modo, Lightwave, Blender, you name them all will give the same outcome when you set up a camera test. They all use the same math from the beginning of 3D time.
Hollywood uses it to produces blockbusters. The test I made was completely clean but you can add distortion to mimic specific lenses and maybe even sensors (wouldn’t surprise me).
I’m not a lens specialist but I don’t think a 25mm F0.7 exists in the real world, yet I used it in the example above. But that is not the issue here.
The question was what are the full frame aesthetics compared to the others. And they answer should be the technical limitations we have to deal with in every day live. But those will be solved and when that happens, the answer is none.
Then the believers will start to point out the differences in characteristics of lenses and or sensors but like Gatopardo said they are there between FF lenses and sensors as well …and since there will be more computer generated lenses within time than vintage lenses, those differences will fade as they will all give the same dull characteristics and you won't be able to tell what camera or lens was used ...and I'm talking about consumer cameras as this is a consumer forum.

You created a 'Jon Pais filter'?

If you cant tell, I'll take your F65. Who wants that heavy, expensive old thing anyway. In trade, I'll take you out to Walmart and let ya pick out whatever camera ya want and then I'll buy ya dinner at Applebees.

I should have used the term 'YUV chroma smearing' ...it's been a while.
Here are two link where Lpowell explains about it.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?340370-Exposing-V-LOG-L&p=1986578386&viewfull=1#post1986578386
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?340370-Exposing-V-LOG-L&p=1986578534&viewfull=1#post1986578534
 

I should have used the term 'YUV chroma smearing' ...it's been a while.
Here are two link where Lpowell explains about it.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?340370-Exposing-V-LOG-L&p=1986578386&viewfull=1#post1986578386
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?340370-Exposing-V-LOG-L&p=1986578534&viewfull=1#post1986578534
 

What 'liberties' did Neumann or Pampuri take to create macro blocking? 
All they did was share ungraded ooc footage.

16bit tiff can hold all color information of a raw file since that is either a 12 or a 14 bit file. The camera info that comes tagged with a raw file will not be saved to a tiff file as far as I know. 

Night for day on Luke in the snow, works pretty nice thanks to the low light (reflector?) in front of him.

Night for day on Luke in the snow, works pretty nice thanks to the low light (reflector?) in front of him.

There is either a lot of NR going on or the compression is at fault, but a lot of detail is missing ...especially noticable on the skin (subjective as I wouldn't recognise it on a wall).
The screenshots are taken from frames were some detail was still visible. It's not kinefinity but it's a joy to grade nevertheless.
If possible I really would like to see how CineD is behaving.

Now that was a great tip. It actually works ....and no need to downscale.
Same CC as above slightly adjusted levels.

Same...

same CC + slightly over the top color grade.

Same color grade node applied to seattle...

 
I'm really impressed by the internal 10 bit Vlog. It can only mean that Cine D will be great.
What stands out the most for me is the beautifull grain, almost BM-like. Gone are the days of fluffy grain clouds dancing all over the place ...at least if this is an indication.

Hi Zak, thanks for the reply. I tried to open them with VLC but I get some grey background with bits of noise. Sound seems to play fine, sounds like wind. I think Luke transcoded them into some codec my Mac doesn't support, as I never had any problems opening files from my GH4. I'm already happy with the files I could open.
Cheers.

My guess is: artist playing guitar gh4
Nice video btw

For what it's worth. I have both a R.J.Camera and a metabones bmpcc speedbooster. Tested both on my GH4 with the nikon 25-50 f4. As both have different cropfactors I had to scale the R.J.camera a small 10 %. Adjusted the colors a bit (more green in the meta) ...and I have to say, to me the R.J. doesn't look worse.
 
Metabones_vs_JRcamera.tif
JRcamera_vs_Metabones.tif

Color looks fine to me ...the balance of the sound on the other hand not so. No idea what the girll was talking about, the music is way to loud to my ears.