KnightsFan

Maybe I look at the wrong time, but I've looked every now and then and I have yet to see any on eBay below $200 in the US. You can sync without TC, it just takes more effort, as the OP and many of us did for years, especially since the major NLE's can sync from waveform. It's a lot of money for something that makes a small improvement to smaller projects. You are talking about jam syncing, in that case, right? You can't use a single tentacle to send constant TC between two devices--can you?

@josdr I had a DR-60D II before, so I believe that. I can live without 32 bit, but it's the top of my "nice to haves," particularly when effects and I'm already holding a mic and performing sounds all at once. I found my AKG CK93 for less than $200, just shy of a new Tentacle Sync E, and that's my primary mic. My first mic, the Rode NTG1, was about $130 if I recall. Both of which were in my opinion better investments that a timecode system, especially since you need minimum two tentacles.

Yes, exactly. It's very annoying, since it is such a small feature that is almost always missing from photo cameras, even ones marketed as hybrids. The GH5S is the only affordable hybrid I can think of with any real TC support. And like you say, dropping a few hundred on Tentacles is such a money drain. A nice, used mic or lens is less than a timecode system, which still only gets you audio LTC that you have to wrestle with in post! I'll never primarily use a camera that doesn't have an actual timecode input ever again, it's such a pain. Depending on how DIY you are, you could build something yourself. I ended up making my own system with Arduinos synced over bluetooth to a cell phone app I made. It was cheap and works as well as a tentacle/other gizmo, but I probably put a hundred hours into making it so it was costly in that regard I've been considering switching to a MixPre II myself. 32 bit would be useful when I'm recording by myself.

You're welcome! You can send a mix from the MixPre to one channel on the XT3, and LTC to the other. Or potentially send a mix from the Mix Pre to the XT3 and HDMI TC the other direction. I wouldn't say the wrong way. It's better than nothing, but it is a workaround compared to pro cameras that have proper timecode functionality. I would explore the HDMI side and see if that gets you where you need to be, and otherwise take some time to work out the workflow sending TC via audio. Once you have to down, it's not difficult, but there's so little information about it that it is indeed difficult to figure out how to make it work. Most people seem to be either pros and cameras with proper TC, or don't use it at all.

Even if the MixPre can do this, it's not advisable. The purpose of timecode is tgetting that time stamp into metadata, and LTC on an audio track is just a workaround to do it. The only reason you'd want LTC in an audio track is if you A) can't put it in metadata, like on DSLR's, or B) need stretch and warp the audio to compensate for drift during the takes which I haven't ever personally seen anyone do, though it is technically possible. Wireless LTC is the simplest way in my opinion, but Imake sure you have scratch audio. My last big project with an XT3, I used a 3.5mm splitter, and ran LTC into one audio channel and used a $6 mic for scratch audio in the other. I used wireless lav transmitters to carry LTC from my Zoom F4 to the XT3. I am not sure if they are compatible, but it seems worth a test to me. See the answer below, jamming the timecode via HDMI might be a good combination of cheap/easy if the drift is acceptable for your work. If you are writing LTC into an audio track, then yes, it needs to be constantly connected. If you are jamming the internal clock to an external source, then typically, no, once you disconnect the timecode source then the internal clock takes over from that same place. That means it is subject to drift once they are disconnected, and you would have to be sure that both are in free run. Definitely do some tests with the devices you own to see how much drift you're dealing with, whether the clock stops when the device is turned off, or other model-specific "gotchas." I'm not sure, I use Resolve exclusively. However it is possible to use 3rd party software to update the file's timecode metadata, which is what I do. I don't know of any ready-made solutions as I wrote the one that I use, but it's a simple ffmpeg command batched across all my files. In my opinion this is a better solution than doing it in your NLE, since the metadata will be ready for use in any software.

Netflix's requirements is not only about having a minimum fidelity to the image, or even making it strictly easier in post, but having a standard workflow. They need to be able to send any one of their productions to any one of their post houses and have it be immediately workable, and that if that team gets shifted to a different project midway through, they can send that half done project to another post house and have them pick it up immediately, no questions. They've decided that TC is a mandatory element to their workflow, from capture through post. To be honest, if I were Netflix, I would specify a lot more of the technical and metadata requirements for my productions just to ensure that every piece is compatible across their entire billion dollar post workflow. On a much smaller scale we do the same thing at my work (outside the film industry). If the designer for one project is out sick and the client needs a change, other people on the team have to be able to open it up and immediately know how to make the change. We adopt standards, some of them because it's the easiest way, some picked randomly just to make sure we're all on the same page.

The Alexa SXT Studio had a rotating mirror shutter, just like a film camera. Technologically, this could be a feature on any digital camera, if there was demand for it. Rolling shutter isn't a sign that digital isn't caught up, per se, it's a sign that in most cases the benefit of film-like shutter artifacts are not worth the added cost.

@Xavier Plagaro Mussard TC is for syncing with audio

A couple highest grossing films of their year: Lawrence of Arabia, 2001 A Space Odyssey, The Godfather, Star Wars, Terminator 2, Lord of the Rings 2 and 3, The Dark Knight. Obviously some lousy films make a lot of money, but by and large prior to ~2005 I'd say that many of the highest grossing films are pretty good or better. I can't say the same for the movies and particularly the shows that rise to the top on Netflix. Every single time I have picked a movie from the top of the Netflix list, I wish I had done something else instead.

I don't know if our thoughts diverge that much. I agree with what you said. I'm saying that streaming is supporting a cultural shift away from more thoughtful movies, towards lower quality (imo) content. Like I said, it's not that streaming is inherently making movies worse, but that the audience is less invested in their content since it's on in the background, or literally stays on after they fall asleep. Quantity over quality. Of course some people still critically watch their streamed content (myself included), but we're in the vast minority. (The other issue I brought up, of concentrating wealth in fewer people is a separate problem.)

Exactly. It's not that all janitors will disappear but when 1 janitor + some automation can take the place of 3 janitors, you have a few million people out of work across the country. Yes, if we don't figure out a plan it will. Amazon's retail business model taken to the extreme would mean that their workers won't have enough money to afford their products, meaning no profits. Everyone at Amazon knows this, but the short term profits are so high, and the possibility that it will affect anyone currently in the company's top positions is so far fetched that there is no incentive to address the issue. Basically what I said to Matins above, it's just a numbers game. There are ~5,000 cinemas in the US, and ~500 billionaires. Each billionaire will employ personal janitors, but will each billionaire employ 10x as many janitors as the average cinema? Probably not, so we can look at the numbers and see that a large number of janitors will be out of work in this ultra-simplified example even though the profession will continue to exist. To bring it back to the topic, that's the exact argument against removing theaters. Theaters support filmmakers like Nolan and Tarantino, where fans pay extra to pick out a movie that they like and want to watch it in the "proper" setting, as opposed to streaming whatever is trending where generally the attitude is more often "well it's free* so I can't complain." Or People have it on in the background and tune out most of the content. Whether you like Nolan or not, you have to admit that he puts a lot more personal thought into his projects than the average Netflix production. (*Netflix isn't free, but when you pay per month instead of per movie, the content feels free to a lot of people). Now I don't believe that streaming is bad intrinsically. I love watching movies at home. I don't care if I watch Inception in theater or stream it, I love it either way. That's why I put "proper" in quotes above, it's not that theaters are the Correct way to watch movies, but that we all know that it is easier for low quality content to be popular on Netflix or YouTube, than it would be in a traditional box office. The trend towards streaming is catering towards a less-discerning audience, and that having a broader, less interested, and less invested audience will reduce the number of unique, high quality productions, both the ones that I love and the ones that I don't.

No one expects a fresh high school grad to make CEO or even middle class pay, but I think it's not healthy for our society to decrease the number of middle class people, have a larger number of people in poverty, and concentrate wealth in fewer mega-millionaires and billionaires. When a trend applies to 350 million people, I don't think it's the result of "everyone is just not working as hard." I agree. I hope that in 30 years, you've got a respectable amount of wealth and power in your business ventures! What I don't like is that given 1000 random people who all put in the average amount of work, the percent that will be in poverty in 30 years is larger now than it was when America had a booming middle class, through no direct fault of their own. Like we agree, it happened or is happening in all industries and ultimately it's worse for a large number of people, and better for a small number of people. Technology has increased that trend. Here's an example: Theaters employed thousands of low paid cashiers, janitors, middle class managers, owners. A streaming service might employ a few dozen highly paid software engineers instead. This is not the fault of the software engineers and ideally they should be rewarded for doing skilled labor and increasing efficiency. But if we don't figure out a way to deal with the large number of displaced workers, wealth disparity will grow. More people fighting over fewer low paying jobs means the wages of those jobs will go down. And of course it's simply impossible to expect everyone to work harder or become a software engineer, because A) there aren't as many jobs required B) we don't have the resources to educate everyone as software engineers and C) not everyone has the aptitiude. I guess that's straying a bit off topic, but it is related. It's not anymore.

It's worth pointing out that Netflix had a net free cash flow of -$3.3 billion last year. Which isn't to say it's losing money, almost no successful startups have positive balance sheets for their first few years or even decades, but it's not like Netflix is making gobs of net money.

Yes, I recommend reading the book I mentioned earlier, Who Owns the Future, it explains everything better than I can. A couple examples of top earners getting massive deals is exactly what I'm saying is wrong. The industry as a whole is making plenty of money, but the middle class worker base is shrinking with a few rising to the very top and most losing jobs or getting lower pay. Same as every other industry, actually. I don't know if that's strictly true. Again, the music industry is making gobs of money, but today a large and growing share is going to platforms instead of artists.

Who makes the money, though? The music industry makes tons of money from streaming, but less of it goes to artists than before streaming. Gaming has concentrated in fewer, larger studios as well, with a few large blockbuster titles, a lot of very small, single-developer/small team indie projects on steam, and very little in between. To bring it back to the topic, there used to be a place for large budget, unique blockbuster films like Inception, or the Matrix. "Free" and "unlimited" streaming is paving the way to large quantities or low quality, pumped out with adequate visuals, engaging actors, addictive by-the-numbers stories. The industry might make more money, but if all of it goes to the AT&T and Netflix execs, the way it did for music, then I do think it warrants pessimism. The reason streaming is lowering average quality is the low bar of entry to view content. One of my friends just watched 4 seasons of Mr. Robot this past week with it on in the background while doing other stuff. That's something you won't do if you pay $11 for a theater ticket, and I guarantee if you're sitting there paying attention to every moment you'll be less willing to put up with filler, inconsistencies, and bad moments. As bad as the theater experience is (and it is bad!), keeping a high cost and requiring a time commitment does force viewers to be more discerning, or in another sense it weeds out the casuals.

I think the comparison to the music industry is apt. I think we need to figure out an economic model for digital goods that doesn't rely on supply and demand, because digital-only goods which can be exactly duplicated indefinitely don't behave like normal products. (CD's or DVD's are still physical objects that need to be bought and owner, despite being digital files.) There is no easy way to determine the value of "a stream," and how that value compares to an actor, or a cinematographer, or hairdresser working for x number of hours. I read an interesting book called Who Owns the Future by Jaron Lanier that talked a lot about this, and extrapolated to the buying and selling of digital money and futures, which led to the 2008 financial collapse, and a prediction that in the far future once 3D printers are good enough, other industries will go the same way. We can see the same thing with our software and increasingly-software-driven cameras. What is the cost of a copy of Adobe CC? Does it have to be the same for every customer? Is it ethical to have two identical models of a camera, but one with software crippling, if if not, why is it okay to have free vs. paid versions of DaVinci Resolve? Tesla cars are doing it too. Ultimately, we can't get rid of streaming. It's too convenient and cheap. But like the music industry, we'll need to figure out how the economics will work otherwise it's not sustainable long term--or maybe it is, and we just will never see big budget, quality movies ever again and everything will be split into either big budget crap, and a few self-funded gems.

Oh interesting. Did Z Cam say that? I never saw it on the FB group. Viltrox already makes E mount lenses and adapters, so I assumed that Z Cam just gave them the camera's protocols, and Viltrox used the E mount information they already had.

This E mount is a 3rd party piece made by Viltrox, not Z Cam. Hopefully they do reverse engineer a couple more protocols, the more options the better!

You're right, I was mixing up some things. You still can't change framerate after adding clips in 17b2. What I was thinking of is that starting in version 16 you can have two timelines with different resolutions in the same project, which wasn't possible before.

Not after you added clips to it.

I started using 17 beta 2 today. So far I am impressed. HEVC playback is improved (the last few versions of 16 seemed to get worse, but it's back to being great), overall UI responsiveness is noticeably better, and the new color tool is pretty cool. I haven't had any crashes yet, but I also haven't done anything other than edit and color. I'm really excited for the direction this software is going!

Interesting. I use a phone as a monitor so I'm not sure. I'd expect it to be as sharp as the internal 1080p, for external recording, so I wonder if there's a setting somewhere? The Clutch is nice. I got one essentially for free as I bought a large package deal, then sold it all individually except the Clutch and came out about even. The more customizable dials and buttons the better, particularly for run'n'gun (which I virtually never do, hence no rigging). It would be cool if there was a thin, fixed handle that you could bolt on for extreme low-profile handheld shooting with a few ergonomic dials and buttons on it. I wouldn't buy it, but it might appeal to people coming from photo cameras.

The first one doesn't look thick. Second one is better in a few shots in particular, but it does bother me that the levels aren't correct. I think if that were fixed it would be better still. It has a lot better use of shadows, and overall uses warmer tones instead of cooler.

Looks great! I think your color is spot on. I actually disagree on rigging expenses--particularly if you use a tripod or gimbal. I don't rig my M4 at all, and my 2nd hand iphone monitor was free. 3rd party NPF batteries are very cheap. You can add simple side handles for next to nothing as well. You can position an iphone above the handle and still have easy access to all controls as well. CFast is very expensive, that's my only complaint in terms of accessory cost. I have a single 32GB CFast card, and I'll probably get another before doing a long shoot. It would be nice if they had an SD slot as well, even if it could only do H265, or 4k60. Do you have HDMI set to 1080p or 720p? 1080p is of course sharper, but has very bad latency I found.

I've never heard depth of field described as "compression." Generally what people mean by "lens compression" is perspective distortion. (I assume this is what you mean by perception distortion?) Perspective distortion of a subject changes as a function of distance from the camera to the subject, and is not related to sensor size, focal length, or aperture. Perspective distortion applies to 3D graphics and your eyes by themselves, not just cameras. You can also look at nuances and distortions of individual lenses, e.g. barrel distortions, "3D pop" etc. but those are not perspective distortion.