newfoundmass

Lightdow 12 x 12 Inch (30 x 30 cm) White Balance 18% Gray Reference Reflector Grey Card with Carry Bag [Folded Version] https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B00HT9MA1W/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_sjwKDbJFCK8A6 That's the one I have. It folds up into a tiny little bag.

That'd be very cool, though I'd be happy with S35 and M43 combo again ?

That's awesome!

I am related to a few! They very much talk about their tools.

I'm almost positive then the G9 can do that, since all my Panasonic's can.

I'd try to output as loud of a signal to the H1n as I'd need. The H1n has very good preamps but I think it's better to let the RODE do the "heavy lifting." Re: automix, you could if you really need a quick and dirty audio mix. It's not the ideal solution but there are times when I've used auto gain/mix when I had no other option.

I don't know that the GH6 will have the low light capabilities of the GH5s, but I suspect it'll have improved low light performance like we've seen with each new GH camera. I'm guessing the low light M43 camera will be the GH6s, when that gets released. I really, really hate the segmentation game everyone is playing.

I'm kinda confused. Are you looking for your settings to carry over from photo to video? Or the ability to change from photo and video without losing your respective settings? From my memory you don't lose your settings when switching from photo to video when using any of the newer Panasonic cameras. When switching back to video on my GH5 and G85 it has the last settings I used in video mode. I don't think the G9 is any different. Panasonic cameras have the ability to set up custom settings on the mode dial, allowing you to switch seamlessly. You could set C1 to the settings you want for video and then C2 the settings you want for photo. For instance I've set them up for the different video modes I shoot in. The G9 is very good for video, though it does lack some of the video centric features of the GH5. I debated getting one as a b-cam for my GH5 but the record limit was a deal breaker for me.

I'm guessing they're in the very early stages of development. It'll probably be awhile before we get much info. The LS300 really is a wonderful camera. It deserved so much more attention and respect. My biggest issue is the menu system is straight up from the 1990s. I've even softened on the plastic build quality, as I appreciate that it's not too heavy (though it could be a little bit heavier!) You can pick them up used these days for so little money, it's insane.

I think we're already seeing that, re: 8K. But I also think 8K is more of a gimmick than anything; it's a way to sell more TVs. Heck, I think 4K was largely the same thing, given those of us with 4K televisions still mostly watch Full HD video probably 95+% of the time. The push for higher and higher resolution has diminishing returns with each increase. The difference between SD and Full HD was massive, the difference between Full HD and 4K wasn't nearly as great given the size of screens most people have, and 4K to 8K is even smaller. If it was going to be adopted we'd have started seeing an influx of 6K televisions and monitors. It's a bridge, at best, between 4K and 8K. Yeah, those people are silly. Worse case you upscale and hardly anyone notices. Honestly even at 4K the data requirements are huge for wedding/event shooting. I wish my GH5 shot 2K! ?

While true, when we got the chance to use a RED it was our opportunity to work on something that was used on Hollywood sets. That was a really huge deal. Of course now we're able to do incredible things with the GH5, Pocket 4K, etc. but in 2012 and 2013 it was huge for us. And it helped lead the way to companies like ZCam and BMD to further disrupt the market.

It's not how I'd react, but I kinda get it. Those folks have invested a lot of money into RED cameras and accessories, and I'm sure they're overall very happy with them, so it's probably kind of difficult for them to accept these allegations. That the RED community has spent a decade plus interacting with the people at RED on a personal level probably doesn't help. Ultimately one of the things that kinda bums me out about all of this is, RED really did do incredible things. When you take away all the allegations, the premium charged for off the shelf tech, etc. you still have a series of cameras that helped democratize cinema cameras, moving the tech forward while also opening it up to a whole different class of people. Until Blackmagic got into the game RED was the only cinema camera people like my friends and me could afford to work with. And it was awesome! It's disappointing that it's legacy has changed in many ways. Regardless of the outcome it didn't need to be like this.

Honestly the more I see the more I like. I was very skeptical about ZCam but I'm glad they've made me eat some crow. I'm glad they exist, at the very least they're pushing things forward!

But those are Canon lenses. Does Sony have that kind of reputation?

I still don't see much of a market for these outside of the YouTube generation of filmmakers that think they need auto focus, but even then is there much of a reason for those people to pay a premium for them when capable stills lenses are available?

One of the ways to invalidate the patent is by poking holes into or completely destroying the sequence of events.

The timeline is a significant part of the case, re: the patent. Establishing the correct timeline, and showing RED allegedly lied repeatedly, including possibly in court documents and/or during court testimony, is key to the case. Jinni did a good job detailing the information but didn't do a good job at all in showing how it all relates to RED's patent and how it allegedly undermines RED's claims, re: compressed RAW. It needs that context to resonate and show why this information is relevant outside of showing major inconsistencies.

The only market for these are the YouTube generation of filmmakers that value auto focus over everything.

It's very interesting. There are a lot of contradictions. I'm not sure if there are enough to say for sure one way or the other, but it's certainly curious, at the very least. The conclusions are not at all unreasonable.

I feel like I saw videos that showed there was very little difference optically between the regular cine and the Xeen lenses. Am I imagining this? Nope!

The quality looks awful. Looks like 720p scaled up. And it records only 10 second clips?

I can see both sides on this one. It provides a stellar image, but that really is a premium price tag for a bridge camera. That you can get the a6500 or the a6600 for close to the same price makes it seem like it's priced too high, though if you need that incredible slow mo it's a great pick.

Yeah, with your needs you could literally use any camera you want. Pretty much every camera released in the last 2 years, minus Canon, has what you're looking for!

That's the weirdest logic I've ever read. You've set your standards too high if that's how you judge the quality of a lens or camera.

He's an accomplished cinematographer. If they're good enough for him then they can't be that bad, not because he's God but because he certainly has more experience / credits than either of us have. I've found his work with them to look pretty decent personally.