kye

I'll add USB-C port to the spec then, a la P4K. However, the price of CFast cards are partly offset by their small size in comparison to an external SSD.

I'll take two!

The drone market is a strange one. Simultaneously you've got DJI pumping out better, faster, cheaper drones with higher and higher image quality, while simultaneously countries are bring in legislation that prohibits anyone flying them unless they're basically a pilot. eg (ignore the click-bait title) I see a collision of supply and demand that won't end well for DJI stock prices.

Nice! What are the additional features this gives that you're most excited about? Very similar to the Sun zoom I have now, the pump style is very nice to use. I must admit that I've been a little curious of the difference between what good optics vs no-name optics are like, so I just ordered a Canon 70-210 F4, a Canon 2X TC, and an FD-MFT adapter (my first canon to m43 adapter!) so I'll be able to compare genuine glass vs the no-name stuff. Do it!! Lots of great vintage primes out there. There's lots of love for the Takumars (which have the focus backwards) but the Minolta stuff is also excellent.

I love the clickbait-ey thumbnail... because people just don't care about secrets if they're only revealed in 1080 ???

I'm just winding you up I've found and reported a few bugs over on the BM forums too. So far though, not a lot of issues from my end. I have had a few WTF moments, but then thought about it and realised that it's probably just a design decision where it works the way it is for some situations, just not the particular way I happen to be using it.

If you consider the BMPCC4K a cinema camera (which you should) then you'll understand how a cinema camera can put pressure on DSLR/MILC cameras. You only have to look at what impact the BMPCC4K had on people shooting with other cinema cameras (eg, lower-end REDs) to know that the more cinema cameras that come out challenging the specs-vs-price equation like the ZCam, Kinefinity, BM, etc the more pressure it puts on the big cinema names like RED and ARRI, but also those manufacturers who span the two worlds like Sony, Canon, etc. It's all connected. Sometimes loosely connected, but connected just the same.

I'm editing the video for my 5 week honeymoon trip in Italy - does that count as important? ??? Seriously though, I've had less crashes on 16 than I used to get on v12.5 per hour. I'm not even kidding. I am doing backups each time I get a new beta though.

Yeah, and an incremental update where you only have to download the patch, rather than the full standalone version would be nice. I have tonnes of internet, but making people download the same thing again and again is just annoying and wasteful.

Interesting stuff. Seems like it might be the time of the 6K camera, which for many will be a nice compromise between the file sizes and cost of 8K but still gaining the ability to crop, stabilise, or downscale in post for a 4K delivery.

My 2x teleconverter for PK mount arrived today. It was a bargain, especially considering that when I opened up the original instructions that came with it, I discovered that it begins with: "The TELEPLUS is the finest quality lens extender on the market" Score!! Even @BTM_Pix can't argue with that! I took some test images through my Sun 70-210mm f3.8, both with and without the TC, and initial impressions suggest that it does a pretty good job of zooming into the horrible CA that comes from the zoom lens! It's a wonder why the person was selling it, maybe it was the whacking great fingerprint on one side of the glass element... ??? I'll be sure to take some test shots over the weekend to properly evaluate it, but it will be great to have some extra reach, considering I'll now have the FF equivalent of a 280-840mm f16 lens.

Peter should be able to sort you out, I hope anyway. It's worth trying the next beta and seeing if it resolves it, har har har.

Nice collection, some ones in there I'm not too familiar with. If you feel inclined I'm sure lots of people would appreciate seeing a video with some footage from each of them so people can make a bit of a comparison. Extra useful if they're in the same lighting conditions. If you're still in Melbourne then I'm sure an overcast or rainy day would have pretty consistent lighting, maybe you can get shots of Melbournites celebrating the climate of their home city by madly dashing through a downpour trying to avoid puddles I've got two Helios 58mm f2 lenses and the Mir 37mm f2.8 and found them to be quite different in character. The Helios is pin sharp in the centre and falls away significantly, even when on MFT where you're only looking at the centre of the lens, whereas the Mir had a different character. They also all change character from wide open to stopped down a couple of stops, so there's lots of variables going on. I was particularly excited to get the Mir because it is supposed to be apochromatic, and to its credit that did give it a different rendering, but I ended up going a different direction and have chosen the Konica Hexanon 40mm f1.8, which is not only faster but is also considered one of the sharpest lenses ever made (if not the sharpest). I have no idea if that's true but it's not that typical vintage look! I remember that video of the busker from when you posted it previously, it's nice work and the IQ is very nice. I think many many people would be happy with the combination of the resolution and beefy codecs of the P4K through vintage glass that takes that modern sheen off it.

In a sense I'd agree, but the bigger picture is a bit more complicated. Over time computers have been getting smaller and cheaper. Early computers were custom built, cost millions of dollars, and took up entire floors of buildings. They were run on valves (tubes for you US folk), needed huge amount of power, created amazing heat, and were subject to all kinds of issues like valves burning out, dust making faulty connections and insects getting in (where the phrase "a bug in the code" comes from). Then with the microprocessor revolution desktops appeared and eventually became cheap enough for domestic use. There were early portable computers around that required mains power but had integrated CRT monitors and keyboards, which were the first step towards portable computers. Laptops became feasible when battery technology and LCD displays reached sufficient maturity and low enough cost. Smartphones appeared when touchscreens and miniaturisation technologies matured. You can look at it like this, people do, but there are some wrinkles in here. For example, laptops are basically mobile phones with a huge screen, huge batteries, and keyboard. In many cases the hardware involved is the same, and phones can easily be made to run the same operating systems. Those with laptops who (like me) use them on the go but then 'dock' them to a larger monitor, storage, and potentially eGPU hardware etc, are essentially bridging the gap between laptops and desktop computers. The only limitation is the comms standards (like USB 3.1 or Thunderbolt 3) and software support. Smartphones have this potential as well - plug in your phone at home and run Resolve on it for example.. We currently turn our phones into laptops quite commonly: So, in the current marketplace laptops are sort-of desktops, and phones are sort-of laptops, what is the future of the desktop? Is it that desktops will be sort-of super-computers? If so, why shouldn't they be designed to be far more powerful than laptops, and priced accordingly? In a world where things are sort-of the next size up, it sort-of makes sense

You're welcome!! I'm assuming they're all Russian lenses? I think I can spot the Helios 44 and Mir 37 in there, but the rest aren't obvious to me Confused and paranoid man with camera runs around at the seaside and accidentally becomes the saviour... talk about trotting out the old cliches!!

Did you figure it out? I have no idea, and if Jim couldn't help then it might be a strange bug of some sort, which means the normal troubleshooting steps, like copying every clip to a new timeline, or a new project, etc.. Alternatively, you could set the in and out points in the Deliver page to a single frame and then export the video using a codec that is an image sequence and get a single image that way. It's a bit of a PITA though!

@heart0less Have you checked in the Deliver page, there are some options (maybe under Advanced?) about using optimised or proxy media during the export, maybe these are accidentally enabled?

Great stuff, keep us informed. PS, I like your writing style, direct with lots of info in few words. Keep it up!

My finger grip for the X3000 arrived yesterday, it is a very interesting and well designed accessory. The unfortunate aspect of it is that it completely obscures the rear door, prohibiting the use of an external microphone. I've examined it with the intent to drill a hole in order to get a 3.5mm mic jack through the rig and into the camera, but it doesn't look like that is too feasible. I will do some testing with the built-in mics and see what I think. My uses for this camera are mostly without dialogue so ambient (non-directional) audio is probably fine. I think this rig might be one of the most interesting from a "nano-rig" perspective, and it might also be why there are hardly any third-party rigs for this thing - it covers the tiny rig category and if you are fine with larger rigs then the 1/4-20 mount provides you with all the options you would need.

There's an economic theory that basically says that 10% of your customers can afford to pay 10x the price for an item if it gives them something they can't get elsewhere. That means (for example) that if Apple are selling 18M computers per annum (link) then there are roughly 1.8M people who would buy a computer that cost 10x what the Mac cost. If a family car costs $25k think of how many people buy $250k or even $2.5M cars. And if R&D costs a the same figure to make a super-charged version then you will still recoup it by selling the same overall $ amount of them per year (10% of 10X is 1). You guys might be surprised they're pricing a computer so high, but I'm surprised that they don't make computers that cost $40k and $400k.

Absolutely. I also think that people don't know they want something until it is invented or becomes feasible. For example, when 1080p was released no-one turned around and said "I want a camera that can record four times the resolution of FullHD, I want it to be the size of a match-box, have a screen on the back and also one on the front so I can film myself and see if I'm in frame, and I want it to do magic so that it looks like a professional steadicam operator is holding it, and I absolutely need all these features and will accept nothing less because I'm going to be using it to make my own TV show starring me and I'll get paid by doing advertisements for brands that reach out to me, not me to them". Now it exists and people are criticising it because the bitrate isn't high enough.

Another data point, slightly OT here, is that I spent 5 weeks in Italy last year and almost every camera I saw from tourists and holidaymakers was a Nikon super-zoom fixed lens model of some kind. I saw a few Nikon DSLRs and a few Canon DSLRs, and of course a zillion smartphones. What I really took from that was that there are pockets of users and they can be quite insulated from each other.

That makes total sense, and I can see that it would result in lots of shots where people are running towards you, providing the best opportunities for shots. I'd have to weigh up the fact I normally sit with the wife and watch the game together while I shoot, plus the fact it would make my son all the more aware of me filming him play, against the better footage. Life was never meant to be easy I guess!

@joema thanks for sharing your methods and workflows In a sense I'm thankful that I don't work with the footage quantities that doco folks work in - a shooting ratio of 600:1 is pretty killer! Plus, the quality bar I have for my projects is exponentially less so there is that Part of the challenge I see is for NLE designers to provide methods for organisation and marking-up raw footage that is of sufficient flexibility and scalability to meet the challenge of the project. The smaller and simpler the project the less comprehensive the tools need to be for doing it all within the NLE. I also see there being a kind of scalability factor where below a certain size the built-in functions of the NLE will work, and above a certain size where doing things outside the NLE and even across multiple external tools is an acceptable overhead for the size of the project and the capability and capacity of the team of editors. However I wonder if there is a middle ground where you have too much complexity for the NLEs integrated tools but the editing team can't afford the overhead of external tools and the additional admin overheads this creates. This gap may not exist in FCPX or PP (I've heard that they're mature and well-featured editing packages) but I suspect that this might be where Resolve might be a bit lacking. I'm not in the territory of this gap, I'm just kind of thinking out loud here. My challenge (and my original call for comments) was that my challenge outstripped my previous technique of just doing a series of passes over the footage until I had an end product, so had to dip into some of the clip / timeline management tools available. In future I'm contemplating doing highlight reels that cut across many years of footage and may end up including footage that didn't make it to a final edit of a previous project, so in a sense I'm kind of looking to a possible future project where my many hundreds of hours of footage are the source media. Also, understanding a larger challenge normally helps when you're facing a smaller one, so there's both a longer and shorter-term benefit of this discussion for me.

1000 nit screens would be great, but if not possible / practical then a decent EVF can also work almost as well.