Tim Sewell

Here's an amazingly detailed and informative video of a presentation given by David Mullen ASC on (mainly) simulating daylight.
 

I think his blog is something like the fifth most influential in this field.

Well look at this - newsshooter to the rescue: http://www.newsshooter.com/2017/02/23/masv-rush-a-super-fast-pay-as-you-go-file-transfer-system-for-the-professional-video-production-industry/

Well look at this - newsshooter to the rescue: http://www.newsshooter.com/2017/02/23/masv-rush-a-super-fast-pay-as-you-go-file-transfer-system-for-the-professional-video-production-industry/

Uploading a large ProRes master to Vimeo also helps to reduce motion compression artefacts.

Cool. I've been playing with this sort of thing too - trying to create a digital tobacco filter. Hadn't tried blending with 'Soften' mode, though, so that's this evening's activities planned for me! Thanks.

It sounds as though you should check out some tutorials on achieving dynamic balance, which will generally involve adjusting the sled weights non-symmetrically..

When they got to their vows... I nearly hurled

Uploading a large ProRes master to Vimeo also helps to reduce motion compression artefacts.

Also, compression artifacts will affect our perception of motion.

Dynamic range, motion cadence.

To my eyes slow-mo tends to look cinematic by default. But if the OP is speaking about dropping frames to convert to 24p... then yes,  I believe you are correct that motion blur will look at bit off. 

You will lose motion blur by shooting at a higher frame rate. Shooting at 24p gives a shutter speed of 1/48 (if you're using the 180 rule, which I assume you are), which gives the level of motion blur we subliminally associate with cinema. If you shoot, say at 60p, you'd be using a higher shutter speed by necessity, so the motion blur would be affected.

No doubt everyone's aware of this, but Cooke Optics' YouTube channel is yet another department of the free film school: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-Ya9gBlwOhRwtloTn1hvbA

Sorry but I can't agree with this - if you mean 'save' in the sense of preserving their current/historic size and market penetration. The fact is that there is certainly no technology available today that would let the vast majority of, say compact P&S camera users, produce watchable video. To produce anything of that nature still - and will for some time - needs practise and acquired skill. That majority of consumers neither want nor need to take the time and make the effort to build those skills.
Given the steady improvement in smartphone cameras, which very much allows consumer-level users to produce stills that look fine without skill or knowledge, I can't actually see anything that is going to save the photo camera makers butts in their current forms.
FWIW my prediction is that within a couple of decades we'll either have less than half the current number of manufacturers, or a similar number, but less than half their current sizes/values. Without the cash engine of a large consumer camera market we'll also see a relative rise in prices of the kind of cameras we want as fewer sales have to support the same level of R&D and tooling.

I used to work in the world of obscure international trade shows and magazines, first as an ad/space salesman, later on the operational side. The magazines - with enticing titles like 'World Plastics and Rubber Technology', 'Railway Interiors' and 'Automotive Testing International' were 100% advertiser-led. They had editorial staff, who called themselves journalists - but in reality they were employed to put the words of the advertisers and the exhibitors into a form that looked like journalism but was, in fact, thinly disguised advertorial. There was absolutely no way in the world that any of those magazines would have criticised any advertiser, exhibitor, or potential client of the future - the companies in those industries could have caused the immolation of a small country and the only news about them in our mags would have been about their latest widget. This became especially pernicious once the publishers all jumped on the (far more lucrative) expo business as potential exhibitors would be offered puff pieces in the magazines as an incentive to book stand space.
That, I'm afraid, is the end game in non-news journalism once it becomes advertiser led. In fact, it even happens in pure news as well - witness the ongoing reluctance, for instance, of the Daily Telegraph to publish articles critical of China in the light of its regular, highly profitable, supplements sponsored by that country.
Personally I stopped taking much notice of DPR once Amazon bought it as, having the experience outlined above, I couldn't see how a website owned by one of the largest camera retailers could maintain integrity in the long term. Whether or not they actually have started to water down adverse opinions of cameras or their manufacturers, the fact is that I can no longer be sure that they don't. And that's the pity of it.
I don't make my living with cameras any more - it's a fun hobby, but an incredibly expensive one (well it isn't actually - I've got friends who are into cars and motorbikes who will happily spend tens of thousands of pounds on their passions and no-one really bats an eyelid - I spend £3K on a camera and people think I'm insane) so I need to know that the sources of information I use to guide my purchases are going to give me the bad news as well as the good. I no longer bother with any of the 'magazine' style sites at all - I research potential purchases here and on DVX User and get opinions, in the round, that I can trust.

I've long read The Guardian online as my primary news source and they have sunk an absolute fortune into their web/app presence and have never had a paywall. As a consequence, of course, they're deep in the doo-doo financially as web ads don't pay the bills like print ads in the physical paper used to. I remember those days - successful sales guys on national papers' jobs were more about picking the advertiser who would demand the least discount rather than actually having to go out and sell to clients - everyone got respectably rich (well, a lot of them didn't, actually, as they spent it all on drink, drugs and hookers at the weekend and came back hungry for more cash on a Monday - but that's another story for when I see you all in the pub!).
Not any more. The Guardian have resorted to hawking 'memberships' at £49 a year to those who wish to pay - you get access to some dedicated content and they send you a nice bag. I've bought one because I have a need for good professional content - I'd be happy to do the same here if @Andrew Reid were to offer something similar.

Unfortunately, with all the other calls on my time, some months I don't get a chance to take any stills, let alone play around with them.
And I would never dream of insulting my digestive canal with anything sold by Starbucks.

Unfortunately, with all the other calls on my time, some months I don't get a chance to take any stills, let alone play around with them.
And I would never dream of insulting my digestive canal with anything sold by Starbucks.

Unfortunately, with all the other calls on my time, some months I don't get a chance to take any stills, let alone play around with them.
And I would never dream of insulting my digestive canal with anything sold by Starbucks.

So here's a thing - I can't justify an Adobe CC subscription just for Photoshop (I use FCPX and/or Resolve for video) as I wouldn't use it enough, but thought there was no other software that would allow me to utilise my large-ish LUTs collection for stills. Just discovered that Affinity Photo (https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/photo/) - that's not too shabby as an editor - allows just this - for just GBP29.99! Very happy and looking forward to a lot of processing over Christmas.

I used to work in the world of obscure international trade shows and magazines, first as an ad/space salesman, later on the operational side. The magazines - with enticing titles like 'World Plastics and Rubber Technology', 'Railway Interiors' and 'Automotive Testing International' were 100% advertiser-led. They had editorial staff, who called themselves journalists - but in reality they were employed to put the words of the advertisers and the exhibitors into a form that looked like journalism but was, in fact, thinly disguised advertorial. There was absolutely no way in the world that any of those magazines would have criticised any advertiser, exhibitor, or potential client of the future - the companies in those industries could have caused the immolation of a small country and the only news about them in our mags would have been about their latest widget. This became especially pernicious once the publishers all jumped on the (far more lucrative) expo business as potential exhibitors would be offered puff pieces in the magazines as an incentive to book stand space.
That, I'm afraid, is the end game in non-news journalism once it becomes advertiser led. In fact, it even happens in pure news as well - witness the ongoing reluctance, for instance, of the Daily Telegraph to publish articles critical of China in the light of its regular, highly profitable, supplements sponsored by that country.
Personally I stopped taking much notice of DPR once Amazon bought it as, having the experience outlined above, I couldn't see how a website owned by one of the largest camera retailers could maintain integrity in the long term. Whether or not they actually have started to water down adverse opinions of cameras or their manufacturers, the fact is that I can no longer be sure that they don't. And that's the pity of it.
I don't make my living with cameras any more - it's a fun hobby, but an incredibly expensive one (well it isn't actually - I've got friends who are into cars and motorbikes who will happily spend tens of thousands of pounds on their passions and no-one really bats an eyelid - I spend £3K on a camera and people think I'm insane) so I need to know that the sources of information I use to guide my purchases are going to give me the bad news as well as the good. I no longer bother with any of the 'magazine' style sites at all - I research potential purchases here and on DVX User and get opinions, in the round, that I can trust.

I used to work in the world of obscure international trade shows and magazines, first as an ad/space salesman, later on the operational side. The magazines - with enticing titles like 'World Plastics and Rubber Technology', 'Railway Interiors' and 'Automotive Testing International' were 100% advertiser-led. They had editorial staff, who called themselves journalists - but in reality they were employed to put the words of the advertisers and the exhibitors into a form that looked like journalism but was, in fact, thinly disguised advertorial. There was absolutely no way in the world that any of those magazines would have criticised any advertiser, exhibitor, or potential client of the future - the companies in those industries could have caused the immolation of a small country and the only news about them in our mags would have been about their latest widget. This became especially pernicious once the publishers all jumped on the (far more lucrative) expo business as potential exhibitors would be offered puff pieces in the magazines as an incentive to book stand space.
That, I'm afraid, is the end game in non-news journalism once it becomes advertiser led. In fact, it even happens in pure news as well - witness the ongoing reluctance, for instance, of the Daily Telegraph to publish articles critical of China in the light of its regular, highly profitable, supplements sponsored by that country.
Personally I stopped taking much notice of DPR once Amazon bought it as, having the experience outlined above, I couldn't see how a website owned by one of the largest camera retailers could maintain integrity in the long term. Whether or not they actually have started to water down adverse opinions of cameras or their manufacturers, the fact is that I can no longer be sure that they don't. And that's the pity of it.
I don't make my living with cameras any more - it's a fun hobby, but an incredibly expensive one (well it isn't actually - I've got friends who are into cars and motorbikes who will happily spend tens of thousands of pounds on their passions and no-one really bats an eyelid - I spend £3K on a camera and people think I'm insane) so I need to know that the sources of information I use to guide my purchases are going to give me the bad news as well as the good. I no longer bother with any of the 'magazine' style sites at all - I research potential purchases here and on DVX User and get opinions, in the round, that I can trust.

I used to work in the world of obscure international trade shows and magazines, first as an ad/space salesman, later on the operational side. The magazines - with enticing titles like 'World Plastics and Rubber Technology', 'Railway Interiors' and 'Automotive Testing International' were 100% advertiser-led. They had editorial staff, who called themselves journalists - but in reality they were employed to put the words of the advertisers and the exhibitors into a form that looked like journalism but was, in fact, thinly disguised advertorial. There was absolutely no way in the world that any of those magazines would have criticised any advertiser, exhibitor, or potential client of the future - the companies in those industries could have caused the immolation of a small country and the only news about them in our mags would have been about their latest widget. This became especially pernicious once the publishers all jumped on the (far more lucrative) expo business as potential exhibitors would be offered puff pieces in the magazines as an incentive to book stand space.
That, I'm afraid, is the end game in non-news journalism once it becomes advertiser led. In fact, it even happens in pure news as well - witness the ongoing reluctance, for instance, of the Daily Telegraph to publish articles critical of China in the light of its regular, highly profitable, supplements sponsored by that country.
Personally I stopped taking much notice of DPR once Amazon bought it as, having the experience outlined above, I couldn't see how a website owned by one of the largest camera retailers could maintain integrity in the long term. Whether or not they actually have started to water down adverse opinions of cameras or their manufacturers, the fact is that I can no longer be sure that they don't. And that's the pity of it.
I don't make my living with cameras any more - it's a fun hobby, but an incredibly expensive one (well it isn't actually - I've got friends who are into cars and motorbikes who will happily spend tens of thousands of pounds on their passions and no-one really bats an eyelid - I spend £3K on a camera and people think I'm insane) so I need to know that the sources of information I use to guide my purchases are going to give me the bad news as well as the good. I no longer bother with any of the 'magazine' style sites at all - I research potential purchases here and on DVX User and get opinions, in the round, that I can trust.

The logical answer would be to employ the LUT you'll be applying in post, and failing that simply a Rec709 LUT. I know that Deakins, for instance, uses his own specially designed look LUT for monitoring to give him a good approximation of how the final images will look.