Davey

I expect it would work in Picture Profiles but how about the custom white balance settings? Do you want to beta test it on your X70 for free?
Davey - no it is not just about SLOG, it is also a REC 709 fix for colour straight out of the camera. Much more Canon like and it solves lots of other stuff as well like the blue highlights freaking out, clipping and the horrible yellow cast to night shots.
Examples coming soon... difference is big!!

It's not an either / or situation - but the balance of good film making has to be in the mind of the film maker and not the gear. I am sure that Buddy Rich could have moved people more with just pots and pans at his disposal than I could ever have with a full Slingerland kit. Talent will always trump tools, but the right tools for expressing that talent will always trump inferior tools.

My experience: "Pro" means in fact 70% very good marketing and sales skills,,,Only 30% is about filmmaking skills. And marketing skills means, try to impress customers with technical assets, specifications and "spectacular" or expensive looking gear. Professional and successful work (from the point of view of the customer) has nothing to do with stellar expensive gear - but this is something, most customers don't know... ;-)
At the end of the day, the story is quite simple for filmmakers doing paid jobs: the result should be the most important criterion: acceptance, views, sales, reactions and impact of targeted audience...But after failing, many film providers try to perform lame excuses by pointing to technical criteria as excellent resolution, contrast, color and image quality...I never saw a RED shooter admitting, his work was worthless for the client... :-))
The gear doesn't tell any story - even an 8K RED is useless as storyteller. And it's all about a story and emotion...

This thread was created so we can all share our opinions on the lut pack, as some of you may know, these were created specifically to the NX1, however, I've made some tests on Sony Cine4, Nikon D800 and Canon 5D Mark 3 with very pleasant results.
The lut pack contains 9 different luts, ranging from color to black & white, stylized looks to achieve a filmic effect on the nx1 footage.
Heres a sample of what to expect from the looks :
Fully Graded with Greenleaf
Later today I will add new screengrabs of all the different looks, and what its best used on.
Feedback is very very important, this was created for the community, and I will follow all of your opinions in order to update the pack and deliver the best possible results! I hope you all have fun and like using them as much as I've had created them!
Happy gradings!!
Buyhere : https://sellfy.com/p/HNAk/#

We've been using the 1DXII for weddings for the past month. Skin tones on a bride are always important, and I think they are great with this body. I don't have any full films completed but here is one of our teasers : 


Matt // www.thefilmpoets.com

Hey Andrew. Sorry if I offended you. Your Spain video is great as well as all your stuff on Vimeo. Please don't invoke Godwin and Trump here. This election is finally over, I just can't stand it anymore. Let's focus on skin tones and filming look here. Enjoy your 1Dxmk2.

The Samsung NX1 and Sony A6300 have been warned. Fujifilm has arrived! No really. This time they mean it. The X-T2 shoots the best 4K I have yet seen for $1500, with a great lens range, pleasing colour science, less rolling shutter and a different approach to ergonomics to Sony.
Read the full article

This was a really intriguing camera until I saw the AF limitation, now the a99II is a no go for me. Some will throw out the "pro's don't use AF" crap, but AF sure makes it easy to set focus with the short focus throw of photo lenses. And after using the tracking on the a6300 and A7rII - its incredibly convenient for a one-man-band to shoot handheld footage or shoot on a gimbal. I don't use AF all the time, but its something I do use. With an AF system this sophisticated, tracking could be next level compared to everything else.
Early adopters are reporting the full AF system doesn't work with older Minolta and 3rd party lenses, so that Sigma 18-35 won't AF either. As much as people on this board want to bash Canon, DPAF works with all Canon lenses and most 3rd party lenses in any mode, not just P and at f/3.5. SMH.
So close Sony, so close.

Goddamn

This whole debate is so funny & it's mind bogling that we are still here talking about it.
Back in the day, when FCP7 existed, no one would touch Premiere with a barge pole since it was a pale bad imitation of FCP/Avid (in fact I didn't know Adobe had an NLE & I was working for a big media company) - the 2 main editing NLEs were FCP or Avid (Avid was used for the big money projects).
FCP gets re-worked, for the better (so much faster to edit than Avid/FCP7/Premiere) & suddenly Premiere is a great editing NLE - NO IT IS NOT! The only reason small companies jumped ship was because they could now (or should that be, had to) RENT the whole Adobe suite & lets face it the only 2 things worth using are After Effects & Photoshop - Premiere is there, so people use it & not because it somehow suddenly became this great editing platform.
Personally, if you can't edit in FCPX then you've got serious problems & the magnetic timeline arguement is a non-arguement (it's brought up by people who've never used FCPX for more than a few minutes). The only complaint I have is the need for 3rd party plug-ins, but if you've got the time you can make your own in Motion (and they tend to be better) - & no one is mentioning how great the new Motion is!

From an editing standpoint it is really nice to have 4k material -- especially if finishing in 1080p. Below is an example of locked-down GH4 footage that is manipulated in post.
As you said, the 1080p of some newer 4k cameras is worse than the "old" 1080p-only cameras before them. Sadly that is another reason to shoot in 4k -- because they made 1080p worse in some cameras. In theory 4k 8-bit 4:2:0 can be transcoded to 1080p 10-bit 4:4:4 (provided you don't use cropping or stabilization). That is another advantage for 1080p delivery -- 4k can provide the bit depth and chroma sampling of using an external 1080p HDMI recorder without the complexity. However 4k makes the "data wrangling" task of post production a lot harder.
 

Best in-camera colours I have seen in any consumer camera.

From the video, it seemed like it was all done in camera. I think the concept is that the different "film stocks" work like jpegs would for stills. Not a whole lot of latitude for post work, but they look good in camera... Like having film convert minus the grain built into the XT-2... But I am no expert with Fuji cameras. 

There is a lot of snobbishness about equipment and a lot of nonsense talked about what makes someone a pro. A professional is a person engaged in a specified activity as a main paid occupation rather than as a pastime. It has nothing to do with what equipment he/she choses for each job. I have "pro" gear but I also use DSLRs when there is a need for light weight work. The IBIS on the GX85 has been very useful on occasions on some paid jobs. Horses for courses.
If the GH5 is as good as it sounds and sells for 2000€ then it'll be a very interesting camera for some professional work and a beast for hobbyists. What is true is that 4K/60 will be a bugger to edit on most people's present editing suites.

I like pond5. Can't compare them to musicbed as I haven't used that site. But I've found a range of good stuff on pond5 after a little bit of clever searching. I like to search for a specific artist that I want something to sound like, rather than general tags which are overused. 
For example, I've searched for "Bon Iver" rather than "folk", with good results.
Also, has anyone checked out this:
http://www.dvinfo.net/article/post/first-look-music-vine-a-fresh-new-music-licensing-platform-for-filmmakers.html

I edited with Premiere for years before switching (mostly) to FCPX. You can get the job done in either editor. Both are used to edit Hollywood feature films, although most of those are edited in Avid.
Assuming "Premiere" means the entire Adobe suite, you have a wider array of tools. E.g, you can do spectral audio editing using Audition, whereas in FCPX you'd have to get an expensive external tool like RX5 for that.
Premiere is available on both Windows and Mac, so you can build a very powerful Windows editing machine using the latest hardware, whereas FCPX is Mac-only so you're limited to that hardware.
OTOH FCPX is generally faster and more efficient. Running on my 2015 iMac 27, it transcodes and exports to H264 about 4x faster than Premiere CC -- on the same hardware.
A big advantage of FCPX is "digital asset management". It is essentially a database merged with an editing program. Premiere by contrast has limited ability to catalog, tag and keyword content, and no ability to do this on ranges within clips. Working on a large project with 50 or more hours of material, it is easy to get bogged down just trying to find content. I worked on a large documentary using Premiere and that was a big problem. We evaluated CatDV (an external asset manager) but back then it was unsuitable so ended up having to write a complex Excel spreadsheet to keep track of all the content.
By comparison FCPX has a built-in asset manager and makes finding content easy -- including tagged and keyworded ranges within clips. The FCPX "skimmer" is vastly faster than any other editor and facilitates rapid visual searches for content.
Many people find FCPX easier to use -- initially. However IMO FCPX is harder to fully learn and exploit all the features. E.g, Premiere (at least prior to recently) had no storage management features, so obviously there was nothing to learn. FCPX has both managed and unmanaged libraries, plus all kinds of side issues related to this -- consolidation, creating "lean" transfer libraries, etc. 
For people coming from other track-based editors like Avid, Vegas, etc, Premiere is familiar and requires no fundamental reorientation. By contrast using FCPX most efficiently requires adopting a different workflow -- using the metadata features, tagging and keywording content in the Event Browser *before* you start cutting on the timeline, etc. This is especially true regarding the magnetic timeline. E.g, making a "split edit", aka "J cut" or "L cut" in Premiere is intuitive and straightforward -- the audio and video tracks are separate and this visually reinforces what you're doing. In FCPX, making that same edit while not detaching the audio is not as intuitive.
Up until the recent FCPX 10.3 release, Premiere had a major ease-of-use advantage in doing certain tasks on a multicam clip. E.g, you could easily apply stabilization, optical flow smoothing or color-correction tracking directly to the multicam clip. By contrast FCPX required a complex workaround of looking up the timecode range in the base clips. As of 10.3 this has been improved but I haven't fully tested it.
From a cost standpoint, Premiere (for the whole suite) is about $50 per month per person, and Adobe essentially discontinued any non-profit discount with CC. FCPX is $299 for a one-time purchase and you can use it on all the computers that "you own or control", and updates thus far have been free. If you ever stop paying Adobe $50 per month, you lose access to your projects, although your rendered output will still be there. IOW you are never "vested" in the software no matter how many years you pay.
OTOH $50 a month is a lot less immediate out-of-pocket expense than the previous one-time-purchase of the Adobe suite, which was thousands of dollars. For that monthly price you are getting a huge amount of diverse software which is continuously updated.

Be careful updating libraries to 10.3 because this deletes any proxies you have generated (which is absolutely absurd).

This is on Live right now:
 

This is controversial-ish, but I feel after looking at Premiere that in comparison to FCPX it's pretty "old-school". Not that old school is bad. FCPX is clearly a lot more modern with the way it's constructed and performs. 
More of the critical non-users are bashing it again. Ridiculous really. It's an ace editor, and in my opinion, the best. 

Just premiumbeat - there are (according to my taste) around five good tracks on there for weddings. I have bought them all and can use them as much as I like.
I have twenty other tracks for various moods but no good for weddings - unless the couple are into weird music.
The production values are nowhere near as good as musicbed's, mind. 

There you go.  If you want to run the maths with this stuff, fine.  Obviously the photo world is full up with these sorts of folks, this is a technical and artistic medium, but ...dang y'all... Just LOOK at the images a camera/lens produces.  If it works good 'nuff for you, get to it.  Go make something.
Don't worry a wit if anyone says what they do is better or worse.  Just do your own thing.

Most things are, unfortunately.

This is going to run for thousands of posts. All I know is that the first time I took a picture with the a7sii and 55 f1.8 it blew the fz200 I'd been using for the previous two years clean out of the water.
That's all that mattered.

I love stuff like this. Made my own bridge superzoom rain cover using a dense plastic bag and a Saxo salt container that just happened to be a sliding push fit on the housing around the lens. Looked ridiculous but got me shots that the broadcast cameras couldn't get at a number of events where it was smashing it down.
Just finished making one for my a7sii and 55mm that sits on the lens hood and protrudes four inches from the glass without any vignetting. Used a Bisto gravy container and stepped down the diameter by using insulation tape (needed three millimetres packing to get a push fit).
At the screen end I have a semicircular canopy that allows some latitude beyond keeping the camera horizontal and I can get in to see the EVF if need be.
Rain covers are £10-£40 but are poorly designed and don't keep the glass free of spots. Mine cost £1 for the insulation tape. Will be using it in London next weekend where the weather is notoriously wet during November, though I am now hoping we have a load of snow

I needed quickly a boom pole for a project but I had no time to order it so I made it myself :D looks a bit ridiculous, but worked very well
It is made from an extendable pole (for painters), something like this, one T tube, one reduction tube and some rubber bands, costs me around 7 euros :D works like a charm with the NTG-2 :D