Snowfun

JCS: I think you need to step back and reflect a moment. As, I suspect, you well know, there is no way to answer your question - it is impossible for "me" to prove anything to "you" if you are suggesting that everything exists only in your imagination. Reductio ad absurdum. That isn't profound philosophical discourse, it is merely rather silly. Not dissimilar to a child asking "why is the sky?" Why do you ask the question here I wonder. Why not join a philosophy forum and debate the issue (although simply quoting Cogito ergo sum might not impress!). If you are genuinely interested in this and similar questions why not study on a mooc or enrol on a philosophy programme? (Yale offer one which is closely linked to cognitive science which is, I recall, another interest?) To some extent you actually do answer your own question - the very fact of posting such a (in my opinion, ridiculous) question indicates a need you have to receive external stimuli. The "fact" (it's not really a fact because you are imagining it) that you ask the question presupposes that there is an "outside". Or, rephrase your question - If nothing external to "me" actually exists then does anything matter? (So why post?) Jonesy asked you a question - are you alive yes or no?

That misunderstands Heisenberg - it isn't that nothing can be known with certainty but that for related pairs (position and momentum being the usual ones) the more precisely one knows the value of one, the more uncertain the value of the other. As someone working in a leading medical/biomedical science research centre, I can assure you that research is published in journals such as BMJ, Lancet, NEngJMed, Nature etc. All available to the public. Of course, that will not reassure you because if you state that this is just "my reality" there is nothing I can say to refute that. As something of a "scientist" and a "philosopher" (as are my colleagues) I'm not sure we do divide between "God" and "computer simulation" in the way you describe. Yes, certainly, there are those who do resort to one or other of those schools of thought as an explanation - but by no means all. It is a very anthropomorphic question (perhaps unnecessarily so) once you use the term "know" (as I think you appreciate because you quoted the term too). To some extent "academics" use "big words" in order to precisely describe the complexity of reality - it's not really the fault of academics if non-academics don't understand! Having said that, one of my main interests as an academic is in science communication so I agree that those of us working in academic research have a responsibility to communicate. I'm currently working on a series of short music-video inspired films which communicate to a general audience our biomedical research themes. To the extent that theee qualify as "art", I hope they are an example of art conveying "reality". On a related point - no academic research scientist I work with would ever use words such as "true" or "truth" at work. The language of scientific "fact" is the language of probability. And that is neither mystery nor Heisenberg - it is simply the scientific method. We do not publish statements of truth - we publish our methods (what we did and how we did it), our results (what we observed) and our conclusions (what we think this means). With an invitation for others to test - is it reproducible? Have we made an error? Is the probability calculated satisfactorily? See the CERN announcement for the Higgs boson for possibly the best example of this (and YT hadron rap for a super bit of science communication!) Some interesting themes here.

Not opting for the reincarnation option after 54 years? Isn't "truth" a social construct almost invariably used by one section of society as a mechanism of control, authority or influence over others? Perhaps even just to promote a common bond. Trivial example: look at the oft stated mantra about "Canon colours being the best" - that is almost certainly true IFF the community defines it to be. Some things we colloquially say are "true" (e.g. 2+2=4) are merely tautologies. The really interesting things such as love, beauty, harmony (or the opposites) are much more difficult to describe by any form of objective scientific description - perhaps this is where & why the truth of artistic expression is so important?

"This could be a useful camera in the field if you need to pick up a shot" ignoring the "GoPro killer" tag, Ed's comment above remains valid?

Maybe not a dead end. Imagine if, when asleep "she" (jewel) becomes/inhabits a similarly aged student (who could potentially be M or F) employed by the project team. That student - at night, whilst Jewel is asleep and apparently devoid of being - could "interact" with the boyfriend and reveal a J&H type character. Why does the boyfriend seem to behave so differently? (Do we all have two sides?). Why can't the "real" Jewel express herself when she's awake? Indeed, who is the subject of the experiment here - Jewel, the other student or the boyf? Fun speculating! And a change from my film plots (a somewhat grandiose term in my case) which invariably involve making espresso...

Variation... The dream recording facility record Jewel's dreams as above. But rather than the (too predictable?) sex based fantasy they find... nothing. Absolutely nothing. Devoid of soul, emotion, thoughts or apparent consciousness whilst asleep. Jewel is fine when awake - she displays the full plethora of human emotions and functions entirely normally. But when asleep: nothing. Almost as if... (but that's as far as I got...)

Having purchased the Hydrogen I'm trying to persuade myself that I really really don't want the new iPhone... But I do and might take advantage of the upgrade option on my existing contract. It's the efficient & effective integration into an Apple ecosystem which has always been the most compelling feature for me.

I thought we'd all agreed with Andrew to keep things on topic as a cinematography forum rather than a vehicle for vox pop "I've read Wikipedia" opinions about life, the universe and other trivia? C'est la vie.

"Better than expected" Yes, absolutely 100%. Whether it is good enough for your purpose is a slightly different question. I could send examples if I know what sort of example might be useful. I'm still getting used to it so I guess my efforts are not optimal.

Absolutely right about the "forum for friends"! I used the term "demand" as in "require" not in any aggressive or confrontational manner. Apologies if that didn't come across. Thank you for the video link - it's on topic insofar as it's about learning! But, granted, tenuous at best. I know the advice given here is frequently "rent before you buy" but it's not always that easy so engaging with users is possibly the next best thing. Tim

@jcs https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3902221/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2642860/ Just 2 papers which question the wisdom of blindly applying animal models to a human context. UG stuff. Totally irrelevant to these fora but you did ask. The fact that you "studied" something is irrelevant. I have studied the spec sheet of a Red epic. Does that make me an "expert" in the art of cinematography? On your logic, yes. I wish! Your approach to the scientific method is flawed. A good scientist presents evidence FOR his or her proposition. They do not demand that someone produces evidence to the contrary. (Unicorns exist. If you don't accept that prove that they don't. Reductio ad absurdum). And evidence in this respect isn't a collection of random copy'n'paste from a variety of sources (rarely peer reviewed). You mention refraining from alcohol. Generally good advice (as witnessed elsewhere by Kaylee's story). But remember http://www.tate.org.uk/context-comment/articles/drink-fuelled-nations-art Always a counter-example! But this is impinging on my day job and it's dull. I apologise for treating your posts like one of my student essays! On a not totally unrelated note - you don't by any chance have direct experience of comparing high ISO footage on the C200 compared to your C300ii do you? (I think you have the latter?) I'd be interested to learn more about that as I'm thinking of a C200. Tim

I switched from the Pocket and BM 2.5 cinema to 2 Micros. Really happy with the setup (smallHD and BMVA for monitors mounted on smallrig cages). Olympus 12-100, Panasonic 15, Olympus 9mm (the body cap lens). But hobby use only!

@jcs. No. The vox pop report you quote refers to an animal study based on the effects of THC. It is easy to copy'n'paste "scientific evidence" - less straightforward to apply and interpret research findings in an appropriate way. Of course, such substances (THC and CBD) may benefit creativity in a variety of other ways!

iPhone (because I always have it) Sony rx1004 (for convenience) BM Micro (my preference but very inconvenient - I bought the Olympus 9mm body cap and that's great fun).

The term "Guardian Reader" is often used to describe a "champagne socialist". The sort of person who happily debates social inequality over a glass or two whilst warming in front of an Aga in their £500,000 kitchen renovation. The sort of person who might make a mini doc about the homeless on their personal Red in the hope of changing social attitudes. Not something to be taken too seriously...

The problem with this is that there is no definition of the "we". There are a plethora of groups who claim to know a (if not "the") "better way". There is, of course, neither evidence that any one of these is any better than any other nor, indeed, an improvement over the current state. By whose criteria might this be judged? Obviously "my" ideas are the best IFF the criteria are my own. And ultimately that's all that is being said here. One of the intriguing aspects of this is that, unlike a clinical trial, there is no control group - you can't test things empirically under identical conditions. In the UK, for example, it can never be tested whether Brexit will make things "better" (whatever that means). So it is all speculation. And speculation dressed up as "evidence" or as a means to legitimise a minority interest is equally as dangerous as the flaws of our current system. Yes, "we" (a collection of individuals satisfies the condition - we don't need a label) must strive always to change things for the better. But let's not perpetuate the myth that there is one defined "better way" nor, worse, that any one individual knows what that is. It's like colour grading - yes we can all try to improve but we'll never agree on the "best" outcome or style or "look" (this sentence added in the illusionary hope of making this relevant to a filming forum!) Tim

That's what it says on the box (apparently - not seen one) so that's good enough! Please, no more Nyquist...

Is there any camera other than the C200 which offers decent* high ISO (25600) 4K raw? A niche market but I'm tempted... aurora filming. Tim * from Bloom's review - maybe I'm mistaken.

There is, I hope, more to being a Mod than having the ability to delete or lock or otherwise censor threads. It might be useful if one of the criteria for being a mod was a demonstrable interest in answering questions posed by interested (and often interesting) beginners and/or more experienced filmmakers - to have made a positive contribution and helped people. Not my place to determine whether Ed fits that. Tim

Might this signal a link between Apple and the RED Hydrogen? Not sure what that might be however. It does seem like a slightly odd offering to find in the Apple store.

Your appeal to Baer is demonstrably nonsense. Rather than simply googling for something with apparent (albeit dubious) relevance, spend a moment thinking about the quote. "All" ideas? Of course, some ideas which eventually become scientific orthodoxy (the Higgs boson might be an example) enjoy controversy and disagreement when initially proposed and only acquire acceptance once evidence is produced and analysed. I suppose the "new idea" to replace film with digital might also be a more relevant example. But "all"? I think not. An example: "the earth is flat" was once a "new idea" too...

Including the awesome Petra Meade? Just noticed that John Lewis (Edinburgh) have a prominent and decent display and selection of cameras - dslr, mirrorless & compact. A large department store can presumably survive diminishing margins but it still looked impressive.

I'd be careful when going too "budget". I have bought three cheap sliders. They wobble and stick and are just generally unpleasant to use. If I'd been more sensible I think I'd have bought a (cheapest) Kessler in the first place...

I have no problem with anyone believing this speculative metaphysics if that is what they need to do. But it is "belief". It isn't "physics" or science - there is no "evidence" or reproducible fact or experimental hypothesis. In the strict use of the term it is non-sense. Appealing to "quantum-this" or "quantum-that" might look good but really just exhibits an ignorance of quantum mechanics (which by definition operates at a quantum scale). The Higgs field is not, as far as I am aware, something one can opt out of. Of course, much like any religious belief system, the absence of verification also implies the absence of empirical falsification hence the comparative ease with which adherents can fabricate arguments which prima facie support their views: "of course you can't see aliens, they wear invisibility cloaks". Personally I'm happy to live within the boundaries of what is real and watch what is not on the big screen.

Antigravity? Quantum mechanics? No. Its just the Red Hydrogen phone...