TwoScoops

Ha!  I think I'll just suffer through the smaller formats.

6x9 is obviously slightly wider than 6x7, but 645 is the APS-C.
This graphic shows it quite clearly:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/35mm_MF_LF_Comparison.svg

Mind blowing? lol

Yeah, 6X7 isn't small at all. 645 is the APS-C equiv.
6X7 is what Steven Meisel, Herb Ritts, et al used in the 90s. You can get incredibly detailed prints from it.
Confusingly, in the stills world they call 645 "Super 35", somewhat confusingly. Meaning a super  version of 35mm film, nothing to do with the cinema meaning.

6x7 is also the IMAX format (except for the sprocket holes in the imax film 70x48.5mm vs 68-72x56mm). The Batman and Interestellar IMAX scenes are pretty impressive, and no, the mamiya lens doesn't show any strange fieldcurvature, and it's being used way over it's pretended image circle.

Yeah, 6X7 isn't small at all. 645 is the APS-C equiv.
6X7 is what Steven Meisel, Herb Ritts, et al used in the 90s. You can get incredibly detailed prints from it.
Confusingly, in the stills world they call 645 "Super 35", somewhat confusingly. Meaning a super  version of 35mm film, nothing to do with the cinema meaning.

I disagree, before I knew anything about camera's or filmmaking I was somebody from the audience, and I could always tell if the movie looked bad or not. When the first digital films came out, I just hated the look. I didnt even knew it was digital back then, I just thought It just doesnt look good. (years later, I can tell you it was the lack of high DR, highlights were overexposed, the image was too sharp, stuff that I didnt was used too before). Ok I was a more serious film enthousiast then your average cinema visitor. But there are millions like me out there, and its those serious film enthousiast who still make a difference in cinema sales & DVD purchases.

Is binge watching new? I can remember binging on the first few seasons of 24 about 10 years ago. I guess it's more common now.

I know exactly what you mean and it most certainly is there in the GH4. Hopefully they fix it with the 5.

No. I'm talking about the away motion is rendered. I'm not talking about RS, but about a very subtle jitter. It occurs also when panning or when fast objects pass across the frame. But I'm not talking about RS. it's more like there would be a drop frame, but less evident. 

I also have GH4 and compared to 7D raw I notice a big difference in motion as well. I'm not sure exactly what it is, but all I can say is it looks kind of fake and electronic (if that makes any sense), like using a super high frame and shutter rate and then playing at 100% speed.

Maybe it's subjective. I used a gh4 and a gx80/85 and the motion feels different to me there is some kind of a subtle jitter at 24 and 25 fps. Never tried at 30fps. But the way it renders motions is different and in my opinion not so good.   

I think he might be telling the truth, just give him a chance...
I really can't believe just how blind some people were in that whole scenario.

If you decide to go with the Mac, you're better with a proper SSD/flash drive vs the hybrid Fusion Drive, IMO.

I'd love to get a C500 in two years when the price comes down even more and 4K recorders are $300. 

That's amazing. Some epic grading too.
He said in the vimeo comments he used a Zeiss cine lens for the close ups. :D

They got the model right, but this video looks like shit from an aesthetic and technical perspective.

My wife was selling a camera on ebay and got a bid , then boom, buy it now.
She got a message from the buyer who said the paypal via ebay couldn't go through, and if she could give her email to him and he would send it thru that.
Paypal emails, says to send the camera, funds are being held until its confirmed that he gets it.
And that was the scam - 
 
here's the email and I'll explain the scam and how it works:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: PayPal <service@paypalapprovalorder.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 1:27 PM
Subject: PayPal Tracking Number Required***You can now post the item
To: [REDACTED]

 

 
PayPal. Safer. Simpler. Smarter.
Use your debit or credit card without revealing your details to retailers.
Speed through checkout without the need to enter your card number or postal address.
Send money to family and friends for free.

 
Make sure you ship to the buyer's desire address ONLY.
Make sure you’re using the latest Internet browser.
 
 

 
Payment has been received - You can now post the item
 
Dear ThinPlace|Pictures,


You've received a payment, detailed below. We've placed a temporary hold on the funds for this transaction.

eBay and PayPal are working together to make it safer than ever to buy on eBay. One of the boldest steps is to identify transactions that pose the greatest risk of fraud and holding the payments from sellers for a period of time to help ensure that the transaction go smoothly.

We'll release the payment for the eBay item if either of the following occurs:
The shipment tracking number is received.
We confirmed item was mail by recognized courier with tracking number.(USPS Priority Mail Express 1-Day)
 
We will notify you by email when the funds are released. Once we confirmed the shipment information.

 
You are safe and secure to ship the item.

Payment Details
Amount (pending): $1,800.00 USD
Routing Code: C840-L001-Q999-T5350
Buyer's Email:   tylerwebb345@outlook.com

Buyer's Required Shipping Details
Address:
 
Barbara M Umstead
100 Oak Dr
Chicora Pennsylvania
16025.
United States
 
Yours sincerely, 
PayPal

 
For assistance contact us via email as our customer service team will be happy to assist you.
 
Copyright © 2016 PayPal. All rights reserved.

PayPal
 
 
___________
 
So this scam is stupid because the money doesn't go into her account.  Also I typed the subject line into google, and 4 other people had the same email - via rolexes, etc.  The poor scam artist could have at least modified a few words!
The better scam I almost got hit on years ago is on a macbook pro I sold - he sent the paypal, and he gave an address.  fedex noticed that address was an abandoned area of town, and the only reason I got the laptop back is that he was at lunch when he was supposed to be there to grab the computer.
So they steal the computer, then they report to paypal they never got the computer and then , they have the computer for free.
___
 
The above guy was lazy.
Anyway, in the internet age, there aren't burgulars anymore or pickpockets - there are online scammers.
Imagine if someone came to your house and stole $1500 from your place.  you would freak out.
how is this different?
 
I don't want to reference anything that went down on this forum, but this got me thinking because the person who did the fraud said he would refund money but he hasn't and he probably won't because he's involved in many, many camera scams.
He probably has at least 10 going at all times.
He probably also has some hook up in the USA and preys on people like my wife - with his knowledge of cameras too, he can be a pretty convincing buyer.
Anyway, the internet sucks.
People scam people on it a lot.
Because there is no face to face communication.  A person doesn't know what it feels like to get robbed of $1500 online because they never see that person.
No one knows how it all feels.
Anyway
I really wish Andrew Reid would jump into this.  
i feel like we all have PTSD from the event.
I know I probably encouraged some of it.  But I still feel horrible especially now that I know that one of the scam victims still hasn't gotten his money back.

 
 

We must live on different planets Dave - I've bought and returned $1000 used cameras from B&H after using them for maybe 75 clicks and felt extremely guilty about returning them.  Not take a $5k camera on two international trips and then openly discuss returning it to Adorama on a popular website.
Clearly doing paid work and then returning the gear used is a dick move IMO, but then to mention the details in a public forum is even worse.  But what do I know.

I owned the 1dc.  The 108060 is softer than the 5d3's 1080p24/30.  It looks like upscaled 720p to me.
So you took the camera on two international trips and used it extensively and still returned it for a full refund?

Not as sharp. But I strongly suggest you judge for yourself, because its still good.
Google: "Canon 1DC slow mo"

As I mentioned 'Not saying that this is the case here' - meaning that I'm not countering claims in this thread, or particularly in the linked article but rather when circulated and discussed elsewhere - where the headlines often orientate around how crucial a particular 'affordable' camera model Is overstated in its use on a well known production, often with sponsor links to purchase said camera in a B&H link. It's all marketing that some people buy in to and before you know it, a regurgitated twisting of the facts pop up on forums as 'fact'. Act of Valor is a good case in point...the indie filmmaker buzz around the 5Dmkii use in that film was completely disproportionate to the use of celluloid.
In a nutshell, an article highlighting a product used on a film's production (during its marketing period) should be taken with a pinch of salt. It is most likely going to be a glowing review, when accompanied with promotional stills from said film.
The BM cameras are obviously a great fit for modern production use, especially since shooting compressed raw gives a very comparative quality to even the highest end cinema cameras. They can deliver fantastic images in the right hands. Saying that, at least one of the BM shots in the Bourne trailer sticks out like a sore thumb to my eyes.
Spotting differences in image (even when intercut quickly) is subjective however, if the story is engaging enough no viewer (no matter how camera savvy) should notice any difference...or even care if they do. If it works in concert with surrounding imagery/context...great! 
I love to read and hear about big budget productions using affordable or 'prosumer' gear in achieving creative results, I'm all for it...especially if it enables more dynamic stunts and effects to be captured 'in-camera' safely. But you almost only ever hear the positive quotes and accounts from DP's- which makes my cynical side presume marketing is at play. They should really be directly asking the poor guy or girl who has to match these cameras in the Di or the AC who lost a take due to corrupt media from a camera that was subjected to too much vibration.
But as stated earlier, it's getting a whole lot easier thanks to affordable compact cameras that can shoot raw like the BM models. To this point, the linked article is valid and fairly interesting, just wish more people read past the headlines a bit more and question why we even need to be told this anymore....most of us know that many modern 'prosumer' or 'affordable' cameras are being used in this way. Just as WW2 era wind-up 35mm Eymo's used to be the 'affordable' camera that could be used in dynamic ways, exactly as these modern digital cameras are being deployed.

Hopefully not using motion JPEGs! 

The essence of that kind of video is:
1. Capture a lot of footage. The author says that he captured 4TB of data to make a 3:30 minutes video in 1080..
2. Match the transition using motion blur, perfect image and frame alignment. This is very important because just a few degrees difference or 1 frame before or after can ruin/win a transition.
Like he says :
"To create a continuous movement, every cut must appear to seamlessly transition into the other. And you can only see if shots really work together while you are cutting them on the timeline. You can have a shot that is very cool but the colour, the content or the movement doesn’t match with the preceding or the following shots. So you have to find another one. It’s like a puzzle. Finding those shots that match perfectly together and that also fit with the story and the overall flow of the edit can be a big problem when you have so much footage."
So it's a game of patience and hard work, can be very very dull sometime because of the amount of raw footage.
For the hyperlpase, I can try to help answer your question if you want. Here is what I do: