kidzrevil

@Andrew Reid might as well do it now. Why wait ? 

13 minutes ago, Aeon said:

I think kidzrevil should be banned.

disrespectful and doesn't even understand the argument.

Close the door on your way out mate!

I clearly don’t understand what’s going on here & I agree my behavior was out of character. My apologies, I will remove myself from participating in the thread as promised earlier.

@Andrew Reid you TRYING to berate me with child like name calling...doesn’t add validity to your statement. Doesn’t make you sound smarter neither its counterproductive to what you’re trying to achieve here by labelling me an “idiot”. Like I said, peace. Don’t stress yourself out I’ve checked out of this conversation.

save that hostility for someone else who doesn’t share your sense of moral equivalency. No one is calling you a pedophile supporter you can calm down now. 

@Andrew Reid see the personal attack was unneccessary cause I guess both me & disney couldn’t separate the art from the artist. I will never stoop as low as you have shown you are willing to go in this thread nor do you personal attacks on myself and others change my opinion about myself or the other posters in the forum. You would think you’re on trial w/ Gunn the way you are acting right now. You don’t have to be a dick to get your point across you know ? Especially since no one called YOU a pedo sympathizer we’re just saying those kind of jokes aren’t worth defending because they are tasteless and offensive. You speak about the bar being lowered but look at your responses *shrug* peace

@Andrew Reid you win, I was never that invested in this topic nor your personal life. I hope thats not what I was alluding to when you wrote that long response so no need to defend yourself You don’t need to go looking for anymore youtube videos to prove your point.

@Andrew Reid and you probably don’t even know why the brand is called “kidz r evil”. Its a metaphor for how the older generation doesn’t even try to understand the younger generation. They demonize and vilify them instead. Sound familiar ? ? there’s depth to me. Im not that surface level of a person you know ? Look deeper ; THIS is artistic expression not jokes about touching kids. You see jokes about touching kids are not only creepy they’re corny and despicable in addition to violating the rule of law. This is what happens when people try to be edgy but end up looking really stupid

try mentioning how artsy & hillarious that guys tweets about kids were at a dinner date. Especially the one about “fcking the little boy next to me” That’ll go over well.

people aren’t virtue signalling here. If a Canon,Fuji,Sony,Nikon,DPreview etc rep was out here with tweets like that they would be gone. No argument about it because we actually have laws in the states that protect kids PLUS the optics of it looks terrible.?

Its a conspiracy ! We don’t understand the genius behind a good pedophilia joke ? it’s cool man, lets agree to disagree. I personally like to leave the children outta my jokes, alot of of other material to cover that doesn’t relate to sexual assault. Things like the Sony A7siii only rumored to be 8bit. Thats a funnier joke courtesy of Sony @Andrew Reid

@Sage like I said earlier these look nice and no one can take that from you but this looks more like a hue, saturation, luminance adjustment to match the cameras. There is a lot more to a color space than an HSL and gamma/contrast adjustment. LOG C has a wider color gamut than VLOG L which would probably cause a lot of issues using certain LUTs designed for LOG C. This is more like a look LUT than a technical one but I guess I can’t make that assessment until I put them in my NLE

again these look nice but I don’t think its a true colorspace conversion. 

Its not the color science thats different its the cameras sensor or color filter array that can “see” more colors than a lower quality sensor. A sensor from one camera could see more red than the other BUT since they are all using the same color space & gamma the results are always predictable and manageable. 

i.e. rec709 is 6 stops of DR whether its coming from a sony or a canon @JeremyDulac

@Gregormannschaft yeah im here to share and learn. Im not learning anything to help my filmmaking career from opinion posts 

???? Huh ? 

VLOG is a color space / gamma specification. You do not need a LUT built specifically for the GH5’s “color science” if the input transform was built for said color space & gamma. If that were true a LUT built for gh5 vlog wouldnt work on gh4 or gh5s. @JeremyDulac 

the only way a LUT has half the chance of doing a color space transformation to a HUGE color space like Alexa’s is with tetrahedral LUT interpolation and even that is a reach. 

@JeremyDulac I do. I make my own LUTs. LUTs do not compare to floating point operations, not by a long shot. Its the prime reason why ACES is 32 bit floating point instead of 64 x 64 x 64 high resolution LUT. 32 bits has WAY more transformations than even a 256 x 256 x 256 LUT. 

And this is why LUTs can color clip channels but the 32bit floating point transformations of Davinci wont. 

Also VLOG is a gamma & color space specification. You don’t need a LUT specific to each camera to convert VLOG if the program you are using has a manufacturer based transform that built for said color space & gamma specification

Can’t you do this conversion with davinci resolves color management in floating point precision ? A lut wouldn’t be nearly as accurate as it needs to be to convert to Alexa’s color science. LUTs are hardcoded by nature. Looks nice though

@webrunner5 I posted that image earlier. The fact that people found a way to defend that...is...eye opening. Im questioning if I should even keep contributing here. These opinion based posts have been alarming to say the least. I don’t have any kids but if anyone found any of those tweets remotely funny or even socially acceptable then they aint for me.

I don’t mean any disrespect but If I get banned for this comment like @Damphousse did then so be it. 

@Dustin try using the battery grip options too bro, the “dummy” battery used to connect the grip helps move the heat away from the main body to the grip. Its the battery that causes the overheating issue in the Sony 

Fortunately for me I never had any of the IBIS and overheating problems people seem to be suffering with using the sony a6500. I also use a battery grip to move the heat away from the body of the camera  

2 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Oh and you know this for sure... Ricky Gervais on stage, he's playing an extreme version of himself - a prick - and Gunn was doing the same here - a creepy perv - it's an act.

It's not real.

He was “playing” a perv for 3 years ? These tweets ranged from 2009-2012 im sure there was a reason why he stopped playing “the creepy perv”. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one cause these tweets are clearly indefensible. Either way it was REAL ENOUGH to get him removed from a multi million dollar contract, tell you that much

12 minutes ago, mercer said:

They weren’t even funny jokes about pedophilia. He should have been fired by comedy. At least Michael Jackson jokes were humorous.

They were a bit much, but that is by my standards. Who am I to say what jokes somebody else can say. But I can choose to associate with him or not based on those jokes... which is what Disney decided is their right as well.

The good news, for James Gunn, is that he can make films and self distribute those films and I am sure he will have a huge following and make a ton of money.

See Disney knows that defending things like this is how you lose copious amounts of $ and how careers end so they cut him loose but I digress. This thread is eye opening

11 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

See I told you it is dangerous to defend someone in the current climate.

You're confusing my defence of a film director with defending paedophilia.... It's a carbon copy example of what I said earlier about our current odd climate of behaviour.

And you're also confusing the target of the joke.

The target of the provocative jokes were not abused children... but a monstrous comedic version of himself... which has no link to reality. It's pure fiction. A character. On a very trivial, casual medium (Twitter).

As for "In a society where everyone has rights the best course of action is to offend as few people as possible."

That is right out of a dystopian novel.

Oh trust me I understand you clearly. Crystal even. What you will quickly understand is that you can’t always separate the art from the artist. What aspect of the filmmaker are you defending cause we are clearly talking about these tweets and not his work. This wasn’t some type of super villain character he was trying to build. This was his thoughts, his personalty, Im sure Disney who was very much so invested in him seen the long term patterns (cause it wasn’t one or two tweets and this went on for a long time) of these tweets and knew how damaging they were.

So no I am not confused about this at all and nor was Disney when they cut him loose.

29 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

 So fire comedians for making bad jokes...

Who cares?! It's only freedom of expression at stake.

If that is the kind of world we live in now, so be it.

@Andrew Reid sir. These are jokes about PEDOPHILIA....pedophilia as in sexually abusing children. To make it worse it wasn’t like one joke it was multiple over a lonnnng period of time. Thats funny to you ?  That’s joke material to you ?

How can you defend this ? @Andrew Reid

“Tell your 3 year old you’re laughing thinking of me ducking 3PO. He’ll appreciate it when older”

I have another despicable “joke” for you to defend

”the expendables was so manly I fucked the shit out of the little pussy boy next to me”

great joke huh. 

@noone @webrunner5 yeah its all in the optical design and the materials used. I have brand new voigtlander lenses that are based on their age old designs and they look beautiful. The coating and materials used do effect the look as well. The coatings on my Takumar set gives gold and purple tones. There is so much that goes into the look of the lens but if I were to guess I would say its definitely a combo of coatings, optical design, materials (like thorium,lead etc.) lead to the look, not the time period the lens was built.

Exactly ! The widest you can go without worrying about distortion with a vintage lens is at 35mm. The 24-28 mm range is usually tolerable for me but the distortion is definitely there. Its a complete different look from modern lenses even on  a modern cam @webrunner5 

Like you said pick the glass for the mood youre going for

1 hour ago, Simco123 said:

LUTS and lens are all part of creating image quality. LUTS are processing baked into an image to provide it with a look. If you use a lens that is flat and low in contrast would you not use a LUT that has more punch? Likewise a contrasty lens would look too clinical with a LUT that is already has a lot of contrast dialled in. My reference to Deakins choosing sharp clean lens comes from the man himself. Deakins avoid using vintage lens because he got the look from lightings. Vintage lens are flawed lens that help mask harsh lightings.

There has been a number or articles out recently showing how "relevent" vintage glass from 100 years ago can look when mated with a RED Monstro, the result is it look like it was shot with any modern lens. This does not come as any surprise as it is a modern digital sensor and the LUTs are digital process.

Likewise if you mate a modern Zeiss Milvus or Otus lens with a film camera from 60 years ago you get a vintage looking images.

Just because you use a vintage lens over a digital sensor does not give a you a vintage look.

I haven’t said any of those things thats the funny part. For starters no one is talking about LUTs in a thread dedicated to lenses. Plus if you knew LUTs are a viable option to correct the lack of contrast then you should know that alleviates the “problem” of shooting with vintage less contrasty lenses or diffused modern lenses. I never mentioned not once that a vintage lens makes the image look vintage because that is simply is not true. What’s true is that these are things YOU are saying and points YOU are trying to make. I use vintage lenses solely for their character and thats it. A lens from 1960 doesn’t make your image look like a period piece from the 60s but there are optical characteristics that are directly related to the construction of older glass. I’ve shot with everything from high end zeiss to vintage zeiss amongst other glass and forum members who frequent this forum could tell you that. Why modern lenses look the way they are do because they have more optical elements for the sake of correcting distortion. This was not common practice with vintage lenses which leads to their character.

As far as Deakins is concerned he is not the only DOP in existence and we all have our own style. Quentin Tarantino’s DP went to panavision to get their oldest glass to shoot Hateful eight. Everyone has their own style. I have mine and other DP’s have their own. I do not like the optical characteristics of modern glass in my work. Am I wrong for that ? 

48 minutes ago, cantsin said:

A question to the collective wisdom of this forum:

Which MFT lens is better, the Olympus 17mm F1.2 Pro or the Voigtlander 17.5mm f0.95?

Their prices are roughly the same. The Voigtlander is manual-only (and designed for manual operation - a plus in my book), but the Olympus has the clever mechanical clutch for manual focus operation.

The Voigtlander is half a stop faster on paper, but like the 25mm/0.95 (which I own) seems be hazy/extremely soft open, not just because of the shallow DoF, but also for the areas that are in focus. Reviews suggest that the Olympus is sharp at 1.2. Regarding the actually usable aperture range, the Olympus may therefore be the 'faster' lens of the two.

The Olympus has the more complex optical construction, 15 elements in 11 groups vs. 13 elements in 9 groups in the Voigt. 

The Voigt, on the other hand, has an (optionally stepless) aperture ring which the Olympus doesn' t have. It will also work on cameras with passive MFT mounts like the old BMCC 2.5K.

- Any more ideas? 

 

The olympus lenses will always be sharper but I really like the character of the voigtlander glass. Stopped down to f2 they are super sharp

8 hours ago, Simco123 said:

You may find the greatest DoP in the world Roger Deakins won't agree with you. Those who are against the "clinical look" tend to look for excuse of not able to light their scenes properly and pick a soft or vintage lens to diffuse the image. Some people are fooled by the look of some LUTs into believing that the image is too clinical when paired with a sharp problem free lens when the problem is the LUT itself. A good sharp clean lens is as good as it get in what is being captured through the glass. How it looks after it is saved in your memory card and loaded onto your computer are interpreted by design.

Thats cool but none of this applies to me soooo redirect your energy bro ?? save your assumptions, prejudgements and sweeping accusations for someone less experienced with filmmaking. How a LUT affects the color of an image and the look of a “clinically” sharp lens are two completely separate topics.

”those who are against the clinical look tend to look for excuse of not able to light their scene properly” <— nice talking point but doesn’t apply here. 

Voigtlander 28mm f2.8 w/ metabones speedbooster ultra x digilogcolor.com “Aesir” LUT