DayRaven

Just now, Jens M said:

Well if you just delay each row of pixel by the time it takes for it to read, does that not fix every situation? I might be confused.

You can do that in premiere, but using the pixel analysis method gives better results - it's basically because the movement of the camera or object in the frame is not necessarily constant throughout the readout, and remember, the data has to be reconstructed otherwise your video will end up being rhomboid? shaped, and you can't grab information from other frames as the time difference is minute.

Ideally you could just calibrate the viewers output device to write the information at the same speed in reverse, but tv's and monitors etc can't and will never be able to do that, so, we have to correct.

32 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

This.

When I question why people get so offended by female ghostbusters its all about freedom of speech and how PC has gone to far.

Ok then, lets discuss the downsides to ALL religions... Nope, not allowed. To delicate.

Hang on - wait a minute, that was not what I said. What I said was don't discuss the downsides of a specific persons religion and apply it to that person without evidence that they follow that negitive bit in their religion. Big difference. You say you're from Sweden. We can discuss the (insert swedish stereotype here - lets pretend there is a stereotype that Sweden has a terrible drinking problem) but it wouldn't be correct, when discussing you as a person and your business to claim, without evidence that because you are Swedish, or live in Sweden that you probably turn up late to every job because you are a drinker. That doesn't mean we can't discuss the drinking problem in Sweden, it means we don't consider you an alcoholic without evidence just because you live there.

My origional point was that positive stereotypes are just as problamatic as negative ones because they maintain the tribalism, maintain a "difference" between us and them and prevent different people from being comfortable with each other. It's nothing to do with political correctness, the Daily Mail's version of Godwin's Law - I'm not trying to stifle free speech, rather I'm exercising my own.

5 hours ago, DPStewart said:

Hello DayRaven,
I wanted to point out that the Article in the Original Post is not at all talking about subject separation from the background. 
What the article is talking about really has nothing to do with that at all.
Not trying to flame you or anything I promise. Just trying to help keep the meaning of the O.P.'s article from being confused with an entirely separate topic.

My apologies then - I don't know what I'm looking for here and any guidance you give will not be taken as flaming, thanks for the info!

He did do a controlled test with the Nikkor 35 f2 vs sigma 35 f1.4, here: http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/3/7/sigma-art-vs-nikkor-afd-part-1

12 hours ago, Brian Caldwell said:

Sorry, but somebody's got to say it.  This has to be the worst piece of trash writing ever done about lenses.  The author has absolutely no clue what he is talking about, and should be ignored.

I've heard some really respected people say much the same thing about lenses, Hurlbut in particular keeps talking about how some lenses have a great pop, and seperation from the background and something about how the focus drops away - I've never really seen it myself, but so many people go on about it, there must be some truth in it? On that website, I thought I saw it in the examples he posted, but since he made a new blog post on the subject, I really can't see any difference in his controlled scenario.

Just now, Don Kotlos said:

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said we should treat people differently. I also didn't say that someone should change their beliefs. 

What I said that we sould should not be afraid to change bad religious traits. So modify religion. 

Oh, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt to be honest. This is worse! Good luck telling people that their "bad" religious traits need to change!

Just now, Don Kotlos said:

Sexual or racial discrimination is very different than any "cultural" discrimination such as religion. The first group is something that you are born with and thus cannot change whereas the second group is learned and modifiable. 

Humanity improves through modifications of the latter and failure to observe and analyze any cultural meme due to political correctness will undeniably lead us to decadence. 

Now correlation does not mean causation. So of course being a hasidic jew does not mean you are going to have a company that does not care about its workers or being a Muslim does not mean you are radical. But at the same time there are common religious traits that can influence human behavior, such as inferiority of heathens, and should be called out and modified for the sake of humanity.

I'm not OK with calling people out on something that there is no evidence that they have done, purely because they follow a certain religion, sorry, I disagree that it is OK to treat people differently for any protected characteristic, whether it be something you are born with or something cultural. If I choose to follow Islam, I shouldn't have to face being treated like a human rights abuser if I am not merely because there is a corrolation between muslims and terrorism, and if I am an Orthodox Jew, I shouldn't get away with human right abuses because people decided to focus on checking the businesses run by (insert religion here) due to the corrolation of Orthadox Jews not treating their workers badly. That would be a better way to improve humanity than trying to convince people to change their religious beliefs, to be honest. Being treated the same as anyone else is a human right and treating groups differently due to hearsay beliefs hasn't exactly done us proud in the last 2000 years - I think it's high time we tried another way.

Just now, BrorSvensson said:

it would not have better center to corner sharpness, it will just be more consistent in the frame with sharpness.

Yep, this, check out the following on A7R vs NEX-7

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sony/Sony-FE-90mm-F28-Macro-G-OSS-mounted-on-Sony-A7R__917

Just now, HJD said:

I'm exited about the Sony a6300 which may become my first Sony camera. I've asked a few online reviewers about a potential issue with the camera that I'm concerned about, and I'd like to ask the a6300 owners in this forum as well. Could you perhaps test if the "soft skin bug" is present in the a6300 or if it has been resolved? Apparently, in some other Sony cameras [a5100, a6000], the "soft skin" filter is coupled to the face detection feature in video mode, which means you can't use face detection auto focus without having a soft skin filter smearing facial details and thus making the talents skin look like wax. Is this bug also present in the a6300?

The manual reads: "Smile/Face Detect. Detects the faces of your subjects and adjusts the focus, exposure, flash settings and performs image processing automatically"

So that image processing doesn't sound like Sony views it as a bug, and it sounds like it may well be present in the camera

Just now, Ed David said:

is run by Orthodox Jews as well, and they have

Don't do that, please! You of all people are above judging people based on things like their religion, race, gender etc - that statement, while I understand was meant positively, was just as discrimitory as "Women can't reverse" or "Black people are lazy". There are Orthodox Jews who respect human/labour rights, there are Orthodox Jews who abuse them. That they are Orthodox Jews does not give you the ability to have any understanding of them at all beyond their religious beliefs.

Just now, pablogrollan said:

On the contrary, the 24-70 mounted on an aps-c sensor will only "use" the center of the lens, which is always the sharpest and best performing area. You can even get away with using full frame lenses that have good center sharpness and contrast and poor corner sharpness/vignetting, etc. since all those defects visible in a full frame camera will not be seen mounted on an apsc-camera. Full frame lenses always look better on aps-c (comparatively). The downside is that it is a little "overkill", since you would be using a much larger/heavier lens than you need given the size of the sensor (and in some zooms that extra weight and size is considerable).

Yes, but it's being viewed by a 24Mp sensor, as opposed to the 18Mp of the A7R II crop area, it has 33% more resolution and will show flaws that are missed by that same part of the full frame

Just now, ZachGoodwin said:

Yes.... And at the max of 60fps raw...

Unfortunately, trying to use any of the baked in, non raw modes causes everything to degrade into mush, you need to go for a plantain model if you want this.

54 minutes ago, Jordan Drake said:

Hey Andrew,
After all the dumping you've been doing on every reviewer, I was surprised to see my video at the top of your blog post. But hey, we all need content right?

It's funny, you guys represent The Camera Store, and have an in-built bias, let alone reason to maintain a good relationship with Sony...

... So the fact you are one of my most trusted reviewers speaks volumes to the hard work you put into your content, and by constantly being fair and consumer minded with your reviews, you have, despite those in-built percieved bias', always "been on my side" when it comes to making a purchase - the respect you get in the community is well earned, and long lasting because I have experienced enough products you have reviewed to know that you have always been absolutely upfront with a products shortcomings. Also, the fact you go through a products shortcomings without pouring vinegar on the product, which may work well for others who don't need that specific feature or can work around it makes you guys an absolute pleasure to watch!

Just now, Bùi Bách Việt said:

My point of view is not racist, not even a bit. It would be if I had said that a black man wouldn't be capable of the feats that Roland pulled off, for instance.

And you're welcome to refute my points, had the discussion around Roland's race continued. I don't consider that an attack of any kind, just a plain old debate. But to call me racist for my preference of a character's race is a personal attack.

I didn't call you racist, and I'm about finished with this debate, I don't think you're reading what I write

Just now, Jpr said:

Am I the only one seeing a fair bit of moire and aliasing? Maybe its the resolution im viewing it at..

There was a bit at 4k, but you know, youtube. I would be shocked if there was none in the railings in between the garages though, I wonder if the garage door is present in the origional.

Just now, Bùi Bách Việt said:

I think you're bending the facts a little too far your own way, and I was going to refute your points but then I realized that would be mucking up a thread with a topic of little interest to everyone else. So let me just say this: any fan of an artistic work should be able to defend their intepretation of it without being labelled as racist, sexist or whatever degoratory terms people like to throw around these days.

No-one should be labelled as anything, people are far more nuanced than that, however, I didn't label you or anyone as anything, I said your point of view feels a bit racist. Very different to saying you are racist. And just as you, rightly defend your interpretation of an artistic work, you should not feel it is appropriate to "refute" anyone elses. I just gave you my opinion and interpretation on an artistic work, you feel it is wrong, so you can't really complain if you feel other people are attacking your interpretation, you just pulled from attacking mine, but made it clear you would have done. Let me add one more derogatory term to your list - "Wrong".

4 hours ago, Bùi Bách Việt said:

Yes the author never said outright what Roland's race was but there are many parts where his race was alluded to (Roland having blue bombardier eyes, Eddie thinking he looks like a gunslinger from a spaghetti western) and other parts where it can be logically deducted (Detta's instant hatred of him and Eddie, she even mentioned a body part of him and Eddie being white in one instance). Yeah you can say that even after all that clues you still can not be 100% sure and that's true, but that's only technicality. What matters is that King portrayed Roland in a way that led us to think of the character as Caucasian.

PS: it doesn't matter that this cast is endorsed by King. What is he supposed to do? Criticize the choice and makes himself look bad under the political correctness machine that is our world today?

He has criticised nearly every other production of his books, so he's not one to pull his punches - and if he did, it would have very little to do with political correctness and everything to do with avoiding a lawsuit.

I think the key with the gunslinger series is that people from different worlds percieve each other through the eyes of their own world - every character in that book is an unreliable witness, that's the whole theme of the books. King specifically subdivides his narration to the audience as through our own worlds eyes, and tells in interviews about the series that he did that out of sheer laziness, it gave him scope to write stories he wanted without the work of constructing a working world, checking that he was being consistant with work he wrote decades ago and being pinned down to consistancy. Detta/Odetta/Susannah percieves him as white because of her background in the 60's civil right movement of our world, but in Giliad, there was no racism, there was no reason nobility could be black - but looking from reatily to reality distorts details, she saw him as white because he acted like a white person did in her world. That's hardly a technicality, it's the heart and soul of the books.

Just now, Cinegain said:

Yeah, sometimes I get the feeling that we've become so scared of offending certain groups within society, that we change our stories and casting based upon that.

And that is where I think it goes a little overboard. I seriously think they might cast a transgender to play the next James Bond, just for the sake of reaching out and say 'see, we have no problems with that, we're all for equality'. But in that... aren't we abandoning the things that makes James, Bond? What's next? Casting someone with a German accent and heritage to play Bond? An actress from Namibia? How is favoring different qualities suddenly equality? It's positive discrimination for the sake of it, if anything, although I'm not sure what positive comes from it.

In this instance, I don't think the choice made had much to do with pleasing feminists or promoting equality especially. As long as the story asks for it, go for it! But not the other way around, please! As said before... you want to reboot a franchise, what are your options? Cast the original actors... tough. Replace them with young male actors... tough, because people will judge them for either trying too much, or be nothing like the originals. I agree, going with a female cast is the way to go! In this case, totally. It wouldn't be forced, it would be a natural and logical move. I'm might not be sure about their casting choices... or how they've established the movie... which now looks like a cheery silly comedy. But that's a whole other thing entirely.

Here's the thing, we live in a society of inequality, but you can't tackle it from the top down, the best you will do is cause tokenism, which is just as damaging. To get more diverse films being made, we need society to be less discrimitory, we need to tell our parents not to take the doll away from our sons if he is enjoying playing with it, we need to stop painting girls bedrooms pink etc. When we stop treating children differently as a result of genetic characteristics, then they will grow up without our baggage, they will quite happily cast a black or female James Bond, because to them, they will have no preconcieved notion of how the genetic attributes "should" behave, to them it will not take anything away from the character.

Just now, Bùi Bách Việt said:

Meanwhile, Roland Deschain is being played by a black actor, and if you don't like it you're a racist...

Well, I mean, if a character whose skin colour is never mentioned is played by a black actor, whom the author of that character is happy with, and you don't like the choice specifically because of the colour of the actors skin... it kind of feels a bit racist.

Just now, Axel said:

It wouldn't help you, because richg101 is wrong. A log recording must be perfectly *developed* by the corresponding, official lut. If you don't see sound colors in Catalyst Browse, then they don't exist, and they can't be produced by even the most elaborate node tree . Especially if it's 8-bit you're dealing with.

Axel, did you even try simply boosting the contrast on the footage rich presented? The colours are there and they are beautiful! Honestly, do it, resist that itchy LUT finger and, like an addict giving up crystal, force yourself cm by cm to only adjust the contrast, and see what you have.

Just now, Mattias Burling said:

Have you read the comments? Honestly I saw 0 cooments that wasnt about them being girls.

And ive never seen this reaction to any of the other Turtles, Avengers, etc.

And Sony, if your reading. Big cuudoos on using regular women and not some Charlies Angles gang.

I agree, the cast is awesome, and I have to admit, I have only seen 2 videos about it, one of which is the RedLetterMedia one, and hardly counts - but I try to stay away from the places on the net where the trolls lurk

A lot of the reaction videos are very negative because a video where people have a positive reaction don't get as many views maybe.

I imagine some is about the gender of the cast, but the most legitimate complaints are that the trailer doesn't capture that special feel the original movies had, and that they seem to be making a fairly generic comedy with a ghostbusters theme slapped on top.

Just now, amsh89es335 said:

Even the mongolia video on the first page shows all the problems I'm talking about. Go look at the movement in it.

The Mongolia video does indeed have jittery motion, even in some very slow moving scenes.

Other users have posted scenes with similar movement without the problem. This eliminates the camera as the source of the problem, no?

Max Yuruev is providing a downloadable sample

Just now, Axel said:

 

Why not? We did this for XH-A1 and for EX-3, the latter having been found by a BBC engineer. Compared to which every Sony profile was really ugly. You don't need to download anything, it's just a short list of values.

That's my point, you found _every_ sony profile ugly in _every_ situation. It's not the colour profiles you have a problem with, it's what the camera is doing on a firmware/hardware level. There is no fix for you, unless sony can update their colour science, you just don't like the current way the hardware is working. That's totally fine, by the way, I am not criticising you in any way what so ever!

Just now, Axel said:

IIf you happen to know of anyone who made a decent custom profile, please link to it. What I found so far makes the colors only worse

I think that this is a huge part of the problem - you can't just download a drag and drop solution to colour science