Justin Bacle

Digital stabilization 1080p, wow so exciting (for us)

Get a 70D then
Already has DPAF and Magic Lantern raw.
As of nearly 2 years ago.
http://www.eoshd.com/2015/04/magic-lantern-now-working-on-canon-70d-both-versions/
I'd rather they cracked the EOS M5 or M6 anyway, as the mirrorless form factor is better suited to video.

Welp. everyone's gotta start somewhere.  As they say, "There's no such thing as a dumb question..."  Just because a question might betray someone's comprehension of things doesn't make the question in of itself ridiculous.  After all, learning about this stuff now will lead to a better skill set down the line.
Here's some 101 level info I found quickly using the world wide web information super highway search engine provided by google.com:  http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/camera-panning-speed

You guys are so restrained and polite I am impressed. 

That it doesn't look anything like compression artifacts in my experience.  It looks like motion blur.
OP:  Shoot the exact same shots and use a tripod.  Don't move the camera.  Upload those images. If the "ghosting" is there, you can start worrying.

Also, keep in mind these are OoC JPEGs, not video frame grabs. Different sampling, processing, and compression applies.

Ironically, it takes powerful lights to create the contrast ratio necessary for a traditional "dark horror" look. Horror sets aren't dark at all to the naked eye.

The Rokinon 12mm f/2 is a great lens, very small and light, I've used it on a GH4 quite a bit and liked it. Recently I've also seen some test footage from Laowa's new 7.5mm f/2 which looks very impressive, and definitely solves "the wide-angle issue" of micro 4/3. 

EDIT: Well, I should have read the post better, you say you don't like the exaggerated look of those ultra wide angles, my bad! Best of luck and happy shopping.

The problem doesn't come from sensor size actually but more from pixel size. 
So you could make a great low light m4/3 sensor. But only at smaller native resolutions

The problem doesn't come from sensor size actually but more from pixel size. 
So you could make a great low light m4/3 sensor. But only at smaller native resolutions

I don't see m4/3 Ever being worth a crap in low light. When you use the comparameter? it is still rather dishearting how little Any camera has gained with great Low Light ability in the last say 6 years. 1 stop if we are lucky in that amount of time. Sony A7s is the only one that is sort of great in low light. And real life that is 25,600 at the top without biting your lip. Sure more if you HAVE too, but you sure as hell don't Want to. Most cameras are still 6,400 tops, 12,800 is Oh Shit stuff. Ain't happening on a m4/3 camera video wise.

THIS guy! :P

I'd say both, it's great to have more vertical resolution, but having to crop less is more "storage efficient" to me. (with magic lantern being limited by the card write speeds, it's easier to achieve more vertical resolution in 3:2 or 4:3 than in 16:9  )
I actually shoot more in 3:2 with magic lantern as it allows slight movement in the shot in post if wanted, but 16:9 is just too much cropping to me.

I'd say both, it's great to have more vertical resolution, but having to crop less is more "storage efficient" to me. (with magic lantern being limited by the card write speeds, it's easier to achieve more vertical resolution in 3:2 or 4:3 than in 16:9  )
I actually shoot more in 3:2 with magic lantern as it allows slight movement in the shot in post if wanted, but 16:9 is just too much cropping to me.

Yeah... For sure. 
But you don't have a m4/3 camera with a Sony sensor,  4:3 aspect ratio,  good 2k resolution, good colors for that price ($450 with kit lens). I think it could be a fun camera B (or even C!). And i still think a hack would be possible... 

I guess you are talking the difference between  4096x2160 and 3840x2160?? They are different crop factors. One is using in essence full frame, and the higher one using a cropped section of the sensor. I am pretty sure the crop factor you are talking about IS different for each.
"The full sensor is 4608 px wide, so the math works out to a 1.125 crop factor for Cinema 4K's 4096 px width (in m4/3 terms), and 2.25 crop factor relative to FF. Your 7mm WA lens suddenly becomes almost 8mm - a noticeable change.
For UHD at 3840 px wide, the factor is 1.2 x m4/3 FL, or 2.4 relative to FF. 7mm is now 8.4/16.8mm; and your 25mm a 30/60mm.
FHD 1080 will continue to use the full sensor width and preserve the nominal FL."
Pete from DPR.
So yes there is a change in the Crop Factors if this is your question? Maybe I am not understanding your question, please inform me and others if we don't answer your question. There is no better way to learn than to ask for advice, and there are a lot of very capable people on here that will help. Welcome aboard.

Log should not be exposed to the right - it needs exposing to place the tones in the scene in the correct place on the log curve. ETTR is for RAW. 

And here's the review - 
 

Thanks Justin! Will do it right away
 

What resolution are you using ?
According to http://rawcalculator.bitballoon.com/calculator_desktop, you can get continuous recording on the 5d3 at 1776x1184 (3:2) in 14 bit. (1696x1130 3:2 for the 5d2)
Are sandisk cards recommended ? I thought only the lexar and komputerbay are able to deal with the bit rate. Anyway, do a write speed test and see the resolution you can achieve according to that

What resolution are you using ?
According to http://rawcalculator.bitballoon.com/calculator_desktop, you can get continuous recording on the 5d3 at 1776x1184 (3:2) in 14 bit. (1696x1130 3:2 for the 5d2)
Are sandisk cards recommended ? I thought only the lexar and komputerbay are able to deal with the bit rate. Anyway, do a write speed test and see the resolution you can achieve according to that

True, my AF100 is quite old, but as great in camera 60 fps slow motion (recorded to 24 fps, so you don't have to fiddle with speed on your editor of choice).
The gh4 is 1080p 60 fps (and more) and is quite affordable now

Wicked! It seems like the LS300 could be one of the sleeper cameras of the past two years.

Man that is a great great deal you got there

Really beautiful dogs, good looking footage, not a fan of the song. I very much like the vintage look and grading. On their Vimeo page Tiffen has a number of videos showing what look their various filters give. I would consider adding a filter if you want to take away even more from the video look. The handheld nature of the video was not distracting at all. But the song was, at least to me. The footage had a vintage feel, but then you drop some autotuned contemporary pop song over it and it just didn't feel right. But that's just my opinion. Did I mention those are some beautiful dogs? I wouldn't stress too much over the lack of stabilization. Really pretty footage. It has a look that I like.