KnightsFan

What do you mean by "live?" Do you mean live as its recorded or live as its played? I suggest for clarification we refer to monitoring as its recorded or as it is played, it's less confusing that way (to me!). Ultimately, you will need to do what @BTM_Pix suggested originally, which is record to a buffer, and selectively play out of that buffer. Essentially, record 4 seconds of audio to a file, slow that file down, and then play it over the next 16 seconds. You can continue to do this until you run out of file space. At that point, you have two streams of audio: A. the one being recorded, and B. the one being played (which is always 4x the length of stream A). I assume the question isn't how to monitor either of those. So I originally thought what you were trying to do is listen to the audio that you are recording, in a rough approximation of what it will sound like after it is slowed down. To do this, every 4 seconds, you listen to the 1st second slowed down to fill the whole 4 seconds. If this is the case, then all you need to do is introduce a third audio stream C, which is exactly the same as stream B, but only plays every 4th group of 4 seconds. This will monitor in real time as audio is recorded, with a slow down effect so you know what it will sound like later when it plays (although you won't be able to listen to all of it). However, you drew a diagram which implies you are listening to normal speed audio, but only listening to 1 second every 4 seconds, the exact opposite of my original thought. So that would also work, but obviously you are listening to audio significantly after it was recorded. So that would bring me to this question: what does meaningful mean to you? What are you trying to hear and adjust for in the audio? So to be clear, this is music being played on site, not a pre-recording of music? I ask because if both the video and audio are being recorded at the same time, and slowed in the same way, they should stay in sync already. So if a band is playing and you are shooting it with an HFR camera and audio, and you project the video in another room with that same audio, both slowed down, then they will be in sync.

I agree with you, but also the XT3 cost significantly more at launch. I wouldnt be surprised if nikon released a pricier APS-C with better video. At least the z50 looks like it has sensible ergonomics.

In one of the BTS features for The Hobbit, Peter Jackson said that one side effect of digital was they would roll through multiple takes. It makes me wonder how much of that is a "usable ratio," or actual footage where the actors are acting, and how much is between takes, clapperboards, etc, how much is from multiple cameras as mentioned, and how much is from content that was cut or done in multiple takes.

We talked about monitors not too long ago here, though there weren't a lot of recommendations. I'd be interested to hear what you end up going for and how you like it, I'm still in the market for a monitor myself. I did a bunch of research and finally picked up an Asus PA329Q on Amazon, but it ended up being a scam (I got my money back, fortunately). I would ideally like LUTs, DCI coverage, and HDR if possible. The PA329Q doesn't have HDR, but what I like about it is that you can manually set it to different color gamuts when you use them. I think many cheaper wide-color-gamut monitors can't easily switch between wide and sRGB gamuts. Out of curiosity, do you use Resolve? I think a Decklink is required to view in 10 bit and/or HDR. For Resolve it almost makes more sense to get a cheap 4k monitor for the UI and then a top quality HD monitor + decklink for viewing. However, that would be really annoying for all other uses, like gaming, photo editing, etc. Yeah, unless it says otherwise, 10 bit always means 8 bit + 2 frc. But for the most part they are indistinguishable, and in any case 8+2frc is vastly superior to 8 alone. If you edit ProRes, you should very easily find a PC build that edits 4k nicely. If you edit 10 bit H.265, though, that might be tough and you might consider a proxy workflow. I've got a 6yo i7-4770 and a GTX 1080, probably in your budget ballpark or a little lower, and 4k 10 bit H.265 has some hiccups every now and then even without an effects. If you edit sound at all, my recommendation is to get a large PC case with a bunch of 120 or 140mm fans, and use SSDs.

Oops, I meant Avengers Infinity War, I haven't seen Endgame. I do think that the original Iron Man had a much more classical arc, where Tony's choices mattered and were not given, so I wouldn't be surprised if Endgame put more effort into that area to round out his arc. I think that the difference is that in the MCU, the choices are actually just character traits. In an extreme example, Hulk will always decide to smash because that's what he does. While the audience technically knows Luke will leave Tatooine because the story wouldn't exist if he didn't, his character is not set up from the beginning to do just that. Honestly, I can't say the characters in the original Star Wars resonate with me, though. It's a bare bones story used as an excuse for some of the most imaginative worldbuilding ever, with a much more interesting cast of places than people.

I don't think that the "lighthearted entertainment" aspect is what really makes MCU theme park-ish. I'd argue that the George Lucas Star Wars movies are also lighthearted entertainment, but without the theme park feel. I even think the first Transformers still felt like a "movie" compared to the MCU (and I'm not talking about quality, but tone and structure). I think this is exactly right: There's something different about MCU and modern Star Wars movies compared to other blockbusters even, they are more like sports in how they portray the heroes and villains, and structurally they are episodic. Edit: Another way to put it is that in the MCU, characters are defined by traits. Iron Man is a leader. Starlord makes 80's references. I would argue that in Avengers Endgame, the choice they make to fight Thanos is never examined at all, it's a given. In classic storytelling movies, characters are defined by choices and their reasoning. Frodo chooses to take the ring to Mordor to save the Shire. The T-800 chooses to melt himself to save the future. In the same way, we admire sports stars first and foremost because of their abilities and traits.

While long tracking shots are always incredible, and difficult to physically pull off, here's a shot that is amazing for the way it affects the story. (Start at 3:14 in case the link doesn't automatically). What I love about this is that there's no complex choreography or VFX, it would be almost trivial to shoot. It's not even a particularly striking composition. Yet this completely ordinary shot both completes Cobb's emotional journey, and simultaneously asks the biggest question of the film to leave an otherwise closed ending completely open. It's worth noting that unlike franchise films, this open ending has no room for a sequel. If we disregard the cut in to Michael Caine, the shot really begins at 3:06, which makes this the only shot where Cobb is seen together with his children, and also the only shot where it is unclear whether he's in the real world.

The OP here has an easy method: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?303559-Measuring-rolling-shutter-put-a-number-on-this-issue! There's some error of course, but his measurements line up with manufacturer claims in the rare cases that manufacturers publish their numbers, so it should be reasonably accurate. I'm too busy this week, but if you get the footage I'd be happy to try to do the measurements next weekend.

Speaking of, Victoria is another film shot in one continuous take, with no hidden cuts. It's impressively action packed with a huge scope of locations. Certainly one of the most impressive shots I've ever seen.

Wow, that is the most accurate summary of the MCU that I've seen. Like Scorsese says, they are not poorly made. Most MCU movies are clearly made with a lot of care and loving attention to detail, just not the details us snobs are looking for. Conveying "emotional, psychological experiences" is their antithesis. There's just the faintest scattering of storytelling: 3 acts, a villain, a half dozen callbacks to Act 1 in Act 3, and the rest is precisely a theme park ride. There is no attempt to communicate an abstract idea or feeling, all information presented by the movie is describing events as they occur, humorous one liners*, and information about the exact extents of a character's physical capabilities. And it's not that fantasy or blockbuster movies are necessarily theme parkish. The Lord of the Rings conveyed an enormous amount of emotion. The Star Wars prequels -tried- to convey emotion, but were hit or miss on execution. Nolan's Batman films were entirely character driven, delivering on the psychological experience moreso than emotional. *With the exception of Thor Ragnarok, and moments in Guardians, the one liners aren't even character-based. Any character could say any of the jokes and it would make sense. I'll also say that Thor is the only MCU movie I've seen that has recurring character jokes that genuinely advance our understanding of the characters and work off of previous content.

I just downloaded the H264 version. I haven't had time put it on my 4k TV, but what I find amazing is that the fine grain is noticeably softer on the 2k intermediate version compared to the 4k and 8k, even visible on my 1080p monitor. In your final side by side comparison, the fine grain on the table in the foreground is GONE by 2.5k! A minor point though is that 70 mbps isn't really enough to show extremely fine detail. If the bitrate isn't high enough to contain all the data, the high frequency detail gets smudged first. That's not even as high a data rate as Sony's famously weak 4k codecs! And ProRes LT will almost certainly have worse spatial resolution at these rates. None of that is to disagree with your overall point. Past 1080p I really see diminishing returns on the story impact, though I do see technical differences even on a normal viewing such as this.

I like being able to hide the screen. I use the viewfinder 90% of the time when taking photos. It's nice to be able to protect the LCD from scratches, and from sweat when you press your face against the camera. The little LCD showing the "film type" is really cute, and seems to have the unique function of showing an easily recognizable icon for the picture profile you're using. Brilliant.

Otto mentions this in his post. It is very curious. If anyone has a hacked NX500, it would be fun to investigate further.

Thats a good idea. What strengths do you see in the E2 over the F6? Rolling shutter will probably be better, better high frame rate options, and of course it is smaller and lighter. Maybe better battery life as well. Do you have any idea how timecode will work on the flagships? A long time ago, either Jason or Kinson implied there would be an adapter from the camera to allow a further stacking of their existing COM-BNC timecode accessory on top of that, but i hope that there is a simpler way.

I'm jealous! At this point I'm just hoping some second hand E2's go on sale as people get their flagship models.

Yes, but in my opinion (and that of many people) "having a resolution over 4000 pixels wide" isn't an original ingredient that you can patent. It is too broad, and too obvious. And you can't patent something obvious. Maybe if Red had patented Raw compression on images "exactly 4000 pixels wide" it would sit better with us. Here's another example: Is it fair that RED's patent covers 16k 120 fps compressed raw video, when they can't do it themselves and certainly couldn't when the patent was filed? Perhaps. But they did say that they removed cDNG because of legal issues, without naming Red specifically.

Thats the crux, how "specific and particular" does a recipe need to be to be patented. Red's patent is incredibly broad, like instead of being a recipe for a particular burger it is like a recipe that encompasses all burgers, not just the one RED makes. It even knocks down formats that existed before Redcode was invented--just because apprently ">4000 pixels wide" is a specific recipe ingredient. Blackmagic will likely reintroduce the cdng raw video they were forced to remove for legal reasons. Z cam probably would, they are currently making a "partial debayer" raw, likely because bayer raw is currently illegal. Sony obviously wants the patent gone, they tried to appeal it before, likely for their cameras that require an external unit (fs5 price range and up, i suspect.)

Haha good point! But to be fair to my silly conspiracy theory, apple was the first company that had a vision for smartphones and made them take off.

Or... What if Apple wants the IP related to the Hydrogen and its holographic cameras/display, and is willing to buy RED just to get that? Or is planning to use this patent fight as leverage for a settlement?

Yeah, that's really what I meant. It wasn't a well organized thesis-and-supporting-argument structure. This latest episode seemed to sort of wander about, pointing out various contradictions, etc. without really tying it together for us. The original mini-mag video was eye opening about how simple the parts were. The one about Redcode really delved into the patent itself. This was sort of an hour long personal attack on various people without a real payoff or conclusion. I'm not a patent expert either. But in my googling, patent definitions always include an "invention." What exactly did Red invent? I'm sure Red also has patents on Redcode. I don't think anyone is questioning Red's ownership of Redcode specifically.

I see your point, but I don't think that's quite analogous. I think a more accurate analogy would be if Coke and Pepsi were actively in a "sugar race" to find new ways to add more sugar to their drinks (in an imaginary world where it's scientifically difficult to add more sugar!), and then Coke patented any drink that had a 50% sugar content or more. Pepsi has already had the concept of 50% sugar for decades and has been racing to find a way to do it, but has to give up on their goal because it's no longer legal--even if they were using a completely different sugar-injection process than Coke was. Red didn't patent an exact recipe, they patented a cap on specs in the middle of a spec war.

Pretty much*. Red's patent is for a video recording that matches all these criteria: - 50% green pixels, 25% red pixels, 25% blue pixels - 24 or more FPS - 6:1 or higher compression ratio - Greater than 4000 pixels wide Obviously, Red didn't invent any of these ideas. There are no special algorithms. It's not like they invented a compression algorithm and patented that. Many of us believe that the patent was likely granted by bureaucrats with no background in digital video who were overwhelmed with technical terms and thought that Red had actually made something new. What exactly is the intellectual property in this case? Everything in Red's patent already existed, sensor and processor technology just hadn't gotten to the point of making it 4k yet. And keep in mind they didn't patent their 4k technology, they patented the concept. It would be like if the first person to invent a car that goes over 100 mph was able lock everyone else out of making 4 wheeled gas powered vehicles that could go over 100 mph. More specifically, Moore's law has been accepted for decades. Resolution wars were already a thing. We knew processors would get better, we knew sensors would get higher resolution. I would argue that it was "obvious" that techniques already in place for HD images could be applied to 4k images, which would invalidate the patent. As an analogous question, do you believe that Sharp should be allowed to patent the concept of an 8k television simply because they were the first to make one? *Edit: and to clarify, I'm not saying Red is evil. I blame the patent office.

There's a difference between voting with your wallet and spewing hate. I don't really see much of the latter here, but you don't have to look hard on the internet to find comments about RED with more vitriol than useful information. We can disapprove of RED's practices AND keep it civil at the same time, which I think is what @Emanuel is saying. RED is hardly the only company whose strategy is to create a mythos around their brand. They are certainly not the only company to patent everything they can, whether or not the average person would consider those patents valid. And I guarantee they're not the only company that can be found to be lying if you comb through all their forum posts from the last 15 years. Let's certainly call out bad practice when we see it, but be civil at the same time. I also found this episode to be a lot less damning than previous ones. Because to be honest, I'm not concerned with whether RED makes their own sensors or not, or when exactly they invented Redcode. I honestly don't care if someone inaccurately remembers when their company created something. I think the patent should be removed for being obvious, the technicality of when Redcode was invented it might be what overthrows the patent, but it's the obviousness of the concept that makes the patent seem wrong.

I don't know anything about these lenses' performance specifically, but AF in cine lenses as a good thing (if it doesn't compromise MF ergonomics). Extra versatility is always welcome. I'm just waiting for someone to pair an internal lens AF motor with a wireless follow focus wheel that behaves the same as current wireless follow focuses with external motors, but with fewer wires and no extra module requiring a power supply.

I'd take inexperienced people too, we'd all learn and become experienced together. I'd be out writing/shooting/editing every day after work if I had a crew. But more in the spirit of the thread... I shoot narrative short films and web series. I'd probably take a Z Cam E2 with cards and batteries, maybe a few Sigma Art Lenses like the 18-35, 20mm, 40mm. Honestly I'm pretty happy with the Nikon AI lenses I already use, and will probably continue using them on all future cameras, but a couple faster, wider lenses would be useful. I'd certainly take a Glidecam vest as well. I think even given the choice, I'd take a small camera over an Alexa with huge cine lenses--though naturally if I was to sell the Alexa/Master Primes and keep the change after buying an E2 I'd do that.