Ehetyz

I'm pro free speech - and that means pro-offensive-speech. 100 percent. 
We're in Fahrenheit 451 territory as a culture.

The online outrage/PC brigade has been completely out of line and out of control for a while now. The climate for discussion it has created is nothing short of sick. 
Now that the targets have expanded from the right to the middle and the left, maybe they'll end up having some real opposition. Hopefully.

Superb director.
But apparently people die "due to jokes" now
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44912175
It's pretty dangerous to defend Gunn though. given the current climate.
Now I'm starting to realise why the buffoon wreaker Trump won the election. People are genuinely sick of the hysterical PC climate and the impact it has on real lives, yours and ours careers, and our art /freedom of expression.

Eh, Bokeh is alright and good bokeh and separation are important "tools" for a cinematographer, much like any other visual styling. Being for or against distinctive bokeh is kind of moot. It's like going "yeah three-point-lighting is bad, you shouldn't use it because it's artificial". Cinematography doesn't always aim to reproduce reality in an accurate manner. I'd say it's more often the opposite. With pronounced bokeh, like with any tool, you just have to have some taste and brains. Sometimes it works for what you want to achieve, sometimes it doesn't.
Edit: I guess I should mention that the times I HAVE messed round with the bokeh in my work, be it with vintage lenses or with self-made bokeh modifiers, they've always garnered praise and astonishment from peers. You can do a lot by reshaping the out of focus areas of your image.

Eh, Bokeh is alright and good bokeh and separation are important "tools" for a cinematographer, much like any other visual styling. Being for or against distinctive bokeh is kind of moot. It's like going "yeah three-point-lighting is bad, you shouldn't use it because it's artificial". Cinematography doesn't always aim to reproduce reality in an accurate manner. I'd say it's more often the opposite. With pronounced bokeh, like with any tool, you just have to have some taste and brains. Sometimes it works for what you want to achieve, sometimes it doesn't.
Edit: I guess I should mention that the times I HAVE messed round with the bokeh in my work, be it with vintage lenses or with self-made bokeh modifiers, they've always garnered praise and astonishment from peers. You can do a lot by reshaping the out of focus areas of your image.

Eh, Bokeh is alright and good bokeh and separation are important "tools" for a cinematographer, much like any other visual styling. Being for or against distinctive bokeh is kind of moot. It's like going "yeah three-point-lighting is bad, you shouldn't use it because it's artificial". Cinematography doesn't always aim to reproduce reality in an accurate manner. I'd say it's more often the opposite. With pronounced bokeh, like with any tool, you just have to have some taste and brains. Sometimes it works for what you want to achieve, sometimes it doesn't.
Edit: I guess I should mention that the times I HAVE messed round with the bokeh in my work, be it with vintage lenses or with self-made bokeh modifiers, they've always garnered praise and astonishment from peers. You can do a lot by reshaping the out of focus areas of your image.

The left have become a bunch of whiny, pearl-clutching Victorians. They've gone completely off the deep end with the offense culture and all the divisive race-baiting and reverse sexism/racism. Hillary was the last time I vote with them. Glad we still have a few brave people like Kanye and von Trier who truly don't give a fuck, but they are few and far between. 

Agreed. If you're at all into post-processing and grading, the BM cameras are godsend, because they leave all the processing off to your own consideration. That's why they come with Resolve included - and I'd dare say it's way more powerful as a processing tool than any in-camera processors.

Agreed. If you're at all into post-processing and grading, the BM cameras are godsend, because they leave all the processing off to your own consideration. That's why they come with Resolve included - and I'd dare say it's way more powerful as a processing tool than any in-camera processors.

Agreed. If you're at all into post-processing and grading, the BM cameras are godsend, because they leave all the processing off to your own consideration. That's why they come with Resolve included - and I'd dare say it's way more powerful as a processing tool than any in-camera processors.

Agreed. If you're at all into post-processing and grading, the BM cameras are godsend, because they leave all the processing off to your own consideration. That's why they come with Resolve included - and I'd dare say it's way more powerful as a processing tool than any in-camera processors.

"The sensor has about 11 megapixels according to the specification and is a Micro Four Thirds format (sensor size 17.3x13mm which means 4:3 aspect ratio). The specification says that only “10.28 Megapixels are active”, making the resolution about 3704×2778 if it’s 4:3. So the individual photo-sites must be about 4.7μm square, about the same as a conventional 3-sensor HDTV camera. Alan found that neither of these sets of dimensions was enough for 4096×2160 recording unless his assumptions are over-simplifications – which seems likely from the measurements above.
...
The camera achieves HD Tier 1 because of the sensor size, while smaller than the preferred 1” size, is greater than the minimum-acceptable 2⁄3” size. The wording of R.118 is not completely consistent on this because testing is required whatever the sensor size, but the camera passes the tests anyway.
... 
It is also important for users to know that they can obtain more dynamic range shooting in the HLG or CineLike-D picture profiles than V-LogL. In saying that, V-LogL and HLG have a lot more dynamic range in the stops allocated above middle grey than CineLike-D. The amount of stops isn’t as important as where they are located above or below middle grey. Just because Cinelike-D has more DR than V-LogL doesn’t mean it’s a better picture profile to shoot in."
 
 
The edifice of his research itself is wayyyyyyy off.
It is NOT a 4/3 ratio sensor, and this is NOT the aspect ratio for 10.23 MP.
They Are actually these:
3680 x 2760 (10.2 MP, 4:3),
3840 x 2560 (9.8 MP, 3:2),
4016 x 2256 (9.1 MP, 16:9),
2752 x 2752 (7.6 MP, 1:1),
2592 x 1944 (5.0 MP, 4:3),
2736 x 1824 (5.0 MP, 3:2),
2816 x 1584 (4.5 MP, 16:9),
1936 x 1936 (3.7 MP, 1:1),
1824 x 1368 (2.5 MP, 4:3),
1920 x 1280 (2.5 MP, 3:2),
1920 x 1080 (2.1 MP, 16:9),
1360 x 1360 (1.8 MP, 1:1),
3328 x 2496 (8.3 MP, 4:3),
3504 x 2336 (8.2 MP, 3:2),
3840 x 2160 (8.3 MP, 16:9),
2880 x 2880 (8.3 MP, 1:1)
 
I am guessing the GH5s could have about 1/5 stop more dynamic range than the GH5 for raw, and less than that for video.
Also, I doubt ANY camera can do 14.6 Stops in a 10-bit codec. I doubt even the highest grade ProRes 10-bit will reach 14.6 Stops. As a matter of fact, after this review, I am curious as to how many Stops of Dynamic Range the Alexas and REDs Achieve on their ProRes Codecs. 
Also, if this sensor were So Capable, Blackmagic would have advertised the 14.6 stops as the USP, above the Dual Native ISO.
Also he says Cinelike-D has more dynamic range than Vlog. How?
Take this review with a ping of salt. Or something stronger. 

I shoot a big variety of things but I tend to most enjoy doing dark stuff. I think this is, while not necessarily my favourite work due to the issues we had in the production, the most visually accomplished;
 
And on the flipside, this one was shot in one day, had a ton of fun and I'm extremely happy with it, even though it's not technically as accomplished:
 
 
Both are NSFW and contain violence.

I was only mildly curious at first but that rec button placement seals the deal. I love it. Looks like they might finally truly nail the ergonomics.

Loving the aesthetic here. XH-A1 was my dream camera back in the day - though I never got to actually use it before it had become obsolete.
This is a feature film I shot with an HV30 back in 2009 with a bunch of my friends. It still remains one of my favourites - I pulled every trick in the book to make that camera look filmic on an absolute zero budget. Our dolly was a skateboard on a wooden plank that we dragged around the woods, but I still look upon the the film with extreme fondness.
 

That's the funniest thing I've read all day!
I never get the endless Canon bashing here, as if they're the only one that segments its lineup. Olympus doesn't put the focus stacking and pixel shift in all its bodies - or PDAF for that matter on anything below the EM1. Panasonic doesn't put 10-bit in anything other than the GH5(s) or a competent AF system in anything. Sony doesn't put anything beyond 8-bit 4:2:0 with the same 100mbps bitrate we've seen for years in anything below the FS5 and so on - yet people here are shitting themselves with excitement over the a7III and its non-existent weather sealing, partial plastic body, cheap spec LCD/EVF and so on because of oversampled 4k and what looks like a great AF system for a mere $2000. Fuji, geez, just check the XH1 thread. Where are the threads bitching about the G9 being crippled for not getting 10-bit? Or the a7r3 with its cheap ass single UHS-II card slot and no 10-bit or even a higher bitrate at $3200? The a9 is even more offensive at $4500. Everyone segments its cameras. Its a shitty reality we're forced to deal with. As to Canon, they're clearly waiting to release the mirrorless 5d4 without cannibalizing 5d4 sales.
Chris

I shoot a big variety of things but I tend to most enjoy doing dark stuff. I think this is, while not necessarily my favourite work due to the issues we had in the production, the most visually accomplished;
 
And on the flipside, this one was shot in one day, had a ton of fun and I'm extremely happy with it, even though it's not technically as accomplished:
 
 
Both are NSFW and contain violence.

I shoot a big variety of things but I tend to most enjoy doing dark stuff. I think this is, while not necessarily my favourite work due to the issues we had in the production, the most visually accomplished;
 
And on the flipside, this one was shot in one day, had a ton of fun and I'm extremely happy with it, even though it's not technically as accomplished:
 
 
Both are NSFW and contain violence.

I shoot a big variety of things but I tend to most enjoy doing dark stuff. I think this is, while not necessarily my favourite work due to the issues we had in the production, the most visually accomplished;
 
And on the flipside, this one was shot in one day, had a ton of fun and I'm extremely happy with it, even though it's not technically as accomplished:
 
 
Both are NSFW and contain violence.

If it's in RAW and you're using Resolve, a little spatial NR on the first node will do the trick. I've gotten away with some serious underexposure when shooting in 4,6K RAW that way.

I agree, Bright was a decent, fun movie. The critical reception it got was perhaps a good reminder that critics are just as prone to bandwagoning and empty virtue-signaling as any average joe.

Should've phrased that better. I'm sure it'll come to the sub-5000 market eventually, but I find it more likely we'll see them become common in upscale cinema cameras first.

It's pretty obvious the 5K is dead. I think it'll be a while before we'll see an actually good Super35 high-res global shutter sensor and I doubt it's going to come from the sub-5000-dollar market either. The one in BMD4K and Aja Cion was pretty much a disaster and it's likely Kinefinity hit the same problems they did (bad light sensitivity, insufficient DR with global shutter). Remember when BMD was saying the 4,6K sensor would have an on/off global shutter mode? Back then they said activating the global shutter would have a DR hit of 2-3 stops. I'm sure it ended up being way more, as the DR hit would indicate they probably weren't able to do a dual gain readout simultaneously with global shutter. I'm pretty sure something similar happened with Kinefinity - they just couldn't wrangle a competetive image out of the 5K GS.

Having worked in Hollywood I can say categorically that the marketing department (money, budget, etc) is less connected to the filmmakers than the person filling the popcorn at the movie theater.  Also, the money can come from different sources.  Even back in 1985 when I worked in the biz foreign distribution money could give/take-away a green light.  That is, there are many "interests" in the film, from academy nominations to simple worldwide gross.  When I was at Orion they made "Dances with Wolves" only to keep Kevin Costner happy so he would make other films with them--who saw Waterworld coming? ;).  While it was being made, people practically laughed to his face about that movie.   Blade Runner is partly a vanity project for all involved.  I remember when they were making 2010, or whatever that 2001 sequel was and had to build all new sets because Kubrick had purposely destroyed the old ones.  At first I thought he was a jerk.  That changed after watching the sequel.   They must have known it would be no 2001.  They didn't care.   For many reasons, various people wanted to invest in it.  Bottom line, if money was the only reason to make blade runner, I doubt it would have been made.  It's an adult story.  They're not money makers.  All the money makers have children in them as lead characters--well, children to me