kye

The latest Resolve has a few AI audio cleanup tools including Voice Isolation and (from the examples in this video) it seems to be witchcraft or something.... Maybe this could help you clean up some of your dialogue? @IronFilm - keen to hear your thoughts on this too.

Here's a video of a colourist grading some A7Rv footage - it looks like it held up pretty well including when he pulled a key on the skin at 12:45. Other Sony cameras have been a mess when pulling keys, so this is seems like a good outcome.

Absolutely. One of the privacy challenges of data is when you are able to combine different types of data. Almost every useful (and private) thing that can be known about a person depends on being able to combine different types of data. Knowing if someone is rich or poor only tells you about their wealth. Knowing if someone buys lots of camera equipment only tells you about their interest in cameras. BUT, if you know both, then you can find the people who are poor and also buy lots of camera equipment, and now you can now know that not only are they poor and interested in cameras, but you can also deduce that they're probably mentally challenged in some way 😉 The more you know about a person the more that you can exploit their psychological weak points, which is why governments and big business love this stuff, because it gives them more power over us.

You're excused for not knowing about WeChat - it's not really known much outside China. Calling WeChat a "messaging app" is kind of like calling a smartphone a "portable telephone" - it's not technically incorrect and that's what it was at the start but it's so far from the truth as to be so misleading that it's worse than useless as a description. Here's the first paragraph from Wikipedia: It also does a bunch of other things too, like payments, booking restaurants / movie tickets, calling taxis, ordering food, etc. Workplaces use it to communicate with staff. It's used in China as the official vaccine passport. WeChat is kind of like Twitter + Facebook + Instagram + SMS + Apple Messages + Skype + YT + ApplePay / your credit card / cash + Uber + Uber Eats + lots of things that are done manually (aren't apps) outside China. The Chinese government loves it because it's highly censored and a valuable piece of their massive surveillance apparatus. I read a long article about it some years ago now that a foreigner living in China wrote about their life before and after getting their WeChat account. The account is hard to get I think because it has to link to bank accounts and other offical things, so they'd been living there without one for some time. Essentially they'd struggled to do day-to-day things in China without a WeChat account, and when they got it they tried doing everything with it and found that they could do almost everything they wanted to do just in the single app. Apparently lots of users kind of use WeChat like it's the operating system on their phone - they use their phones just like we do only they do everything inside WeChat rather than from lots of apps all written by different companies. If Musk can make Twitter into anything that even remotely compares to WeChat then $44B will look like the money spent buying a winning lottery ticket compared to collecting the prize. Assuming he doesn't screw it up of course. But either way he's guaranteed to piss off the people who like the status quo, which is what we're seeing. Silicone Valley types like to go fast and break stuff, and while they mostly get things wrong, they've also built almost all the cool stuff too, so we'll see.

I'm guessing you're quite sensitive to 180 shutter then? I see more and more wedding videographers and even high-end YT channels use super-short shutter speeds rather than NDs. With phones exposing via SS I think that most social-media-oriented folks have just gotten used to it.

Did you think they were breaking the 180 line? I'm curious because I didn't notice anything like that, or don't remember noticing anyway. Maybe you're more sensitive to that than I am.

I think it's highly dependent on the situation. This article details the process to get the below shot - apparently these birds dive at around 25mph and even when using 10fps burst mode on a D4 most frames didn't even include the bird at all so it took about 720,000 photos to get a perfect one: In terms of if it matters or not, I find that in my own personal work my experience of shooting is highly dependent on if I feel that I'm getting footage I like. That might be different if I was merely trying to please a client in order to put food on the table and new lenses in the collection, but who knows - we're all different and keeping up morale and creativity is a personal thing.

Yeah, that's the kind of challenge I have with cameras.. the rules aren't clear, the security guards aren't experts, and you don't want to have to leave anything with them (or sometimes you simply can't leave anything with them). One temple I went to in Bangkok had a sign... 8mm film cameras are OK, 16mm film cameras are not. This was in 2018. I wish I'd taken a photo of it. I'm not sure how they'd have classified my GH5, so I tried to keep a low profile.

Here's a video showing some ARRI Alexa Classic footage upscaled to 8K with Topaz. It's in bits throughout the second half of the video. https://youtu.be/YJpQCSFZMTM (link won't expand, not sure why) TBH I thought the results looked quite mixed - some shots looked much higher resolution but other shots just looked the same (had the same 2K film-like rendering and noise) so I guess it depends on your tastes and input footage. This might be a better real-world test as it doesn't seem to be only the cherry-picked footage that gives great results.

Oh yeah, extra resolution is noticeable - especially when you're the one taking the shots and able to pixel-pee in post. I guess the challenge I have with high resolution is that it only excites my brain - any image that has made me FEEL anything has either been 2MP or analog, and most of the seriously emotional images were actually slightly blurry. I don't know if higher resolution stops me from feeling something or stops the shooter from creating emotive images, but whatever it is, as resolution goes up they become less important.

I've heard he wants to take it in the direction of WeChat. If that's true, and he pulls it off, he'll make an absolute killing. There is definitely demand for many of the extra features that WeChat has that twitter doesn't, so it'll be a matter of implementation. Twitter seems to have been devoid of any serious innovation for quite a long time now.

How do they assess if it's a MILC or fixed lens? I wonder if a small enough camera with a "fixed" looking lens would work?

Yes, being able to anticipate the moment and compensate for it by hitting the button early would be highly dependent on how predictable the perfect moment is, how long the delay time is, and how good you are at compensating for the delay. It seems like you have particularly good timing and are operating in less predictable scenarios so the performance on offer isn't sufficient to meet your needs. Pity. Ultimately though, you have to go with what gets you the most keepers. After all, cameras are tools, not toys, right 🙂

I've found that adjusting diopters can be really tricky because if you adjust them then your eye just adjusts to compensate, so your eyes kind of don't tell you when the diopter is adjusted wrong - you just end up with eye strain after a while and you don't really know why.

Getting used to there being a delay in something is absolutely a thing. I've had the experience several times where I went from something that had a delay to something that had less delay and the sensation that you get is that the thing happens before you hit the button! Obviously it wasn't beforehand, but I was so used to the delay being there that my brain had eliminated it. Some people may be better at adapting to small delays than others of course.

What is the bottle-neck on most cameras? is it the sensor, or some chip that is receiving the data down the line? If it's the latter then it could be something that could get a bump by buying a faster processor for whatever function that is, but if it's the former then it's really about the sensor and I suspect there's probably no free lunch in that regard. If you want a faster read-out then you tend to only get one with lower resolutions or lower bit-depths. In that sense, manufacturers have been upgrading the data rates but instead of giving us the same resolution as the last generation and better RS, they're giving us more pixels and same/worse RS. Just another reason why this resolution fetish is screwing the majority of us for the sake of a few people who actually benefit.

I'm also downloading, but it'll take some time (both to download and to check them out!). Thanks, this should be really interesting. Do you have some thoughts after shooting it? I presume you've had a bit of a look at how they compare?

No, but I think it might have been either on the DSLR Video Shooter YT channel or on the Anamorphic on a Budget channel. I vaguely remember that it might have been in a monitor roundup style video where they compare various monitors, but I can't recall exactly. Hope that helps, although googling things like "custom desqueeze monitor" etc might generate some results?

Or mil-vuc Or mil-vac Or M-ilv-K In terms of the label, it doesn't help at all. Every camera from an Alexa LF to the OG BMPCC to a Sony VG900 Handycam is a MILVC.

That makes more sense. I'm assuming the de-squeeze functions of the monitors aren't orientation specific - otherwise just tilting the monitor would fix it. I'm not aware of any, but I'd suggest that @Tito Ferradans might be the best person to ask, if he's around and notices I've tagged him 🙂 I know there are monitors around where you can enter the squeeze factor yourself rather than choosing pre-defined values, but I don't know if they would go <1.

I'm confused. Anamorphic lenses squeeze the image and the monitor de-squeezes it so that round things stay round and your actors don't sue you. If you're shooting with an anamorphic lens then wouldn't you still need to have a monitor that desqueezes it? Or do you want to have people looking like bean poles / trolls?

This is how I operate my GH5 - using MF primes and getting extra reach using the 2x digital zoom which recording 1080p on the GH5 is still oversampled from 2.5K. The only issue with such a setup is if your lenses are sharp enough! Hardly anyone seems to shoot this way as it's basically never talked about, which means that this feature set isn't that common - even the GH6 doesn't have it. It's a big deal for me because I've literally designed my lens set around this feature. I agree that it should be compared to video/cinema cameras, not hybrids, although these days there's a spectrum on the video-side of cameras between completely manual cinema cameras and completely automatic video cameras, with many cameras sitting somewhere in-between, so a lot of cameras have video features that are hybrids of cinema and video cameras. This spectrum isn't something that most people are really that aware of, and people just seem to look at the video functions of cameras as a random soup of potential features that have no overall structure or philosophy, which TBH couldn't be further from the truth.

There were sign replacement VFX shots? Didn't notice them at all.

Have you tried adjusting the EVF diopter? It sounds like yours isn't adjusted properly. My understanding of how to adjust them is to set it so that your eye doesn't have to change focus when looking at the subject directly and looking at the subject through the viewfinder. These adjustments are super-powerful - my dad wears pretty strong glasses (which obviously aren't compatible with putting your eye right up to the viewfinder) and he's always been able to adjust them to compensate for his vision, so they're at least as powerful as a pair of relatively strong prescription glasses.

Yes, the FP is a fascinating data point - having a spectacular image but it not being "better" in many/most of the specs that we tend to pay attention to. Food for thought.