rawshooter

Simple explanation - the S1 doesn't have an AA filter/OLPF (as opposed to the S1H), see this article:
https://petapixel.com/2020/02/10/how-an-anti-aliasing-filter-impacts-a-cameras-photos/

So this is expected behavior.

10 minutes ago, Ed David said:

But really, again, you accused them of so many other things.  Like their kickstarter campaign was fraud and the founders were just puppets and social media influencers.  I cant, because of my weird OCD, sit back and see these words go on eoshd as public record and easily searchable by google.  

I really dont want to get Joe involved in asking him about this, but go for it if you want to ask him, I can give you his email.

 

I indeed have to withdraw my allegation that the two Digital Bolex representatives were just hired influencers. I tried to dig deeper into the matter, and it's really complicated - Cinemeridian was founded by your friend Joe, but apparently became a subsidiary of Ienso. (There are also online sources that state that Cinemeridian was a joint-venture of Ienso and Swiss Bolex:.)

There's been a discussion on the company's ownership on the Personal View forum in 2013, with Elle Schneider chiming in:

https://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/2568/digital-bolex-raw-camera-no-longer-made/p24

(But nowhere did I write that their Kickstarter campaign was fraud!)

23 minutes ago, Ed David said:

Like putting "made in the USA" on their cameras when they are made in Asia (most likely Singapore) as well as unfair practices against competitors, harassment, doxxing, etc etc.

 

If you buy an Apple Mac Pro, it also says "Made in USA" although all the components were made in Asia. And to celebrate the "Made in USA" fact, they even pulled this stunt at the factory:

4 minutes ago, Ed David said:

And here's more about digital bolex from wikipedia that, unlike you, has citations.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Bolex

Digital Bolex was a partnership between Cinemeridian, Inc. and Ienso Canada, an engineering company, to develop the Digital Bolex D16 digital cinema camera. Development was funded via a successful Kickstarter in March 2012, raising $262,661.

From Wired magazine: https://www.wired.com/2013/12/bolex-digital-16mm-film-camera/

"The camera is being produced under the name "Digital Bolex," but it's actually a joint venture between the original manufacturer, Bolex International, S.A., and Cinemeridian, Inc, a young company of digital wizards that was formed to bring this idea to fruition."

More about Cinemerdian, INC via google:

Company: Cinemeridian Inc. (Lauren Schneider)

Address: 707 S Broadway #1223 Los Angeles CA 90014 US
Phone: +1.2136283191
Email: info@digitalbolex.com

 

I shouldn't even reply given the tone in which you write.

None of what you state above disproves (or is in contradiction) to what I wrote. Here's the company registration info on Cinemeridian:

https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_ca/C3626603 

The registered company address is: 

20 MURAL ST UNIT 7
RICHMOND HILL ON CANADA L4B 1K3

...which is actually the company address of Ienso Inc.. That means that Cinemeridian (the company that produced Digital Bolex) was a full subsidiary of Ienso. The company registration page also tells Cinemeridian is: 

Branch of CINEMERIDIAN INCORPORATED (Delaware (US))

i.e., using a matroska puppet construction for the company.  If we're looking up the registration of Cinemeridian Inc. on https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_de/5047665, we get:

108 WEST 13TH ST, WILMINGTON, New Castle, DE, 19801

As I wrote, this was probably done for tax reasons, since Delaware is considered a tax shelter state within the U.S.: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/092515/4-reasons-why-delaware-considered-tax-shelter.asp

A company "Digital Bolex" never existed, since the trademarks for Bolex remains with the original Swiss Bolex company, and their trademark was only licensed for the D16.

One of the launch videos for D16, which was posted here in this thread before by someone else, was uploaded and advertised as " the first film shot on the new Digital Bolex" (it still says so on the Vimeo page):

...but if you only look at the very beginning of the video - actually right at 00:01 -, you see that it was shot with the Prosilica GX2300:

So, if you would use moral categories (which I didn't do, but many people here in this thread), then Digital Bolex lied to its customers. (The statement "the first film shot on the new Digital Bolex" is objectively untrue.)

But I also wrote that in the end, the D16 was a real camera and people were happy with it - in fact, I wouldn't mind having that camera myself! 

16 hours ago, Ed David said:

To paraphrase you, @rawshooter

your defense of red is:

"Every other tech company has done illegal and/or bullying tactics before (including Olympus hiring the Yakuza) , so there is precedent for fraud and this makes it okay.  That is completely normalized behavior.

 

I haven't written this, and you grossly distort what I wrote. Please read carefully. I only wrote that Jinni Tech's disclosures are not having the shocking news value that many people here think they have.

You even distort and wrongly paraphrase what I wrote about Olympus. 

And if you think that what I wrote about Digital Bolex is factually wrong, prove it.

Philip Bloom is - by his standards: unusually - outspoken on the R5:

"This is the first camera I have used in memory that punishes you for using it. [...] I spent £4200 on a camera I cannot use most of the time and that’s ludicrous! I truly hope they find a way to fix this debacle."

9 minutes ago, sanveer said:

You know someone who has committed rape, murder, genocide, hate crimes or something similar. 

So you're saying that you won't call him  out because ... there are other people doing these too, and they're apparently, common.

So because, according to you, many people do these crimes, it's not really a big deal.

Wow. What an amazing argument. 

 

You're getting me completely wrong.

What I'm saying is: In a civil war where warlords are fighting each other, take it with a grain of salt when a small warlord accuses a bigger warlord of his crimes, don't think that those crimes are singular or exceptional - and if you want justice, put all the warlords out of business.  (And, if you go to an investigative journalist, or even to the United Nations, to make them aware of the small warlord's YouTube accusations against the big warlord, expect to be shrugged off.)

That's why I compared to Jinni Tech's videos to truther videos. They're literally repeating the Joseph Kony YouTube meme (- sticking to the warlord analogy).

24 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Yes, it's infamous the bad blood between these two Australian companies. Apparently Atomos was founded by someone who split away from Blackmagic. 

Yes, and then Blackmagic sued him over taking away trade secrets (I linked to a summary of the lawsuit).

As a result of that feud, we now have Blackmagic pushing its BRAW and not supporting ProRes RAW in Resolve, because it's Atomos technology. Atomos conversely pushes ProRes RAW which it jointly developed with Apple - and for which it pays license fees to RED, since RED legally threatened Atomos over breaching its compressed RAW video camera patent.

As a result of all these shenanigans, RAW video is a f*cked-up mess. (Again, I'm just bringing up all these examples to show the whole tech industry is Machiavellian, with lawsuits over overpriced proprietary technology being its routine business.)

9 hours ago, IronFilm said:

I don't buy the argument that they were simply "repackaging the Prosilica GX2300", because:
 

I didn't write this, I only wrote that they presented a Prosilica GX2300 as the D16 prototype at SXSW when the Digital Bolex project made its first public appearance, and launched its Kickstarter campaign - so I actually said the same that you said!

And just for fun/entertainment:
Here's some interesting coverage of the litigation history between Blackmagic and Atomos:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1892682b-5576-4997-8b87-1c750c6a768d

Speaking of which:

Apple just took legal action against a small company for its "Prepear" app that allows to plan meals, arguing that its pear logo was an infringement of Apple's logo:

"Prepear says that it is a 'very small business' with only five team members, and explains that legal costs from the dispute have already cost thousands of dollars and the layoff of a team member."

https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/08/legal-action-against-company-with-pear-logo/

So, here you have the equivalency of the hot dog stand. I'm not saying that RED's business practices aren't despicable, I'm only saying that they're common in the industry.

5 hours ago, Ed David said:

Can you give some examples that Red.COM llc is a very normalized case of a tech company?

Out of my head:

• How HP and other printer manufacturers shut out third-party ink cartridge suppliers by putting DRM chips into their printers that would cause the printers to stop working and spew out error messages if you used a third-party ink cartridge. HP (and other "original" printer manufacturer) ink is several times more expensive per liter than Chanel No. 5 perfume and vintage Scotch whiskey. In fact, RED only copied the HP business model with its RED mags.
• How practically all camera manufacturers use DRM chips in their batteries to block the use of third-party batteries, and spread FUD (fear/uncertainty/doubt) that third-party batteries will damage your camera. - Just this week, I'm struggling with third-party battery error/warning messages from a Sony mirrorless camera after I installed a firmware update. 
• How Amazon sues all web stores that implement 1-click-buy buttons.
• How Apple sued everyone who used the word "App Store". 
• How Microsoft earns more patent royalties from Android licenses than from its own operating systems.
• How the MPEG-LA sues everyone who uses the h264 codec without paying them license fees.

1 hour ago, Video Hummus said:

I never said it was good versus evil.

You brought in the moral category of the "good cause"...

Anyway, we could also extend the cause to other small-scale camera manufacturers. Take Digital Bolex, for example. When they were still in business, they pretended to be a filmmaker-run Kickstarter grassroots project. In reality, however, a company "Digital Bolex" never existed,  but the actual company was the large-scale Canadian electronics manufacturer Ienso. The people who posed, on fairs and in social media, as the "Digital Bolex" founders, were neither company owners, nor camera designers, but hired social media influencers.

On top of that, the supposed Digital Bolex D16 prototype presented at the SXSW festival to launch the Kickstarter campaign was a disguised third-party camera by another manufacturer (the Prosilica GX2300). Later, the company registration was changed from California and Canada to a letterbox company address in Delaware. Enough material for shocking YouTube revelations - objectively even more shocking than what's currently being 'revealed' about RED.

Nevertheless, the D16 turned out to be a real product, wasn't exactly affordable, and people were and still are happy with it.

Bottom line: I still fail to see how RED's business practices are categorically worse than those common in the industry. (And if you want to pick a really bad case, just take Olympus with their corruption scandal and past ties to Japanese organized crime.)

1 hour ago, Video Hummus said:

In my opinion JinniTech is fighting the good fight here for consumers.

Please give me a break, this a business suing a business.

If we're turning this debate to one of "good vs. evil", we should go to churches, join cults or watch superhero movies. 

If you want to support a good cause, have a non-profit NGO like the EFF sue corporations like RED (or Apple, or basically the whole industry), but never trust another company.

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

"Truther-style videos"?? Wow. 
Clearly you either didn't watch his videos at all, or you did but just didn't comprehend them. As they after all covering YEARS of documented history of RED, and many aspects that RED has done wrong. (but yes, at the core it is all about the MiniMags like @BTM_Pix highlighted) If he was to try and just as thoroughly cover it with an article, that could easily turn into a multi series of them as well! You can't properly cover all of that in just a few paragraphs. But even a casual browsing of your videos should be enough for you to catch onto the history of lying and deception RED has been engaging in. 

I've got no problem with Jinni Tech choosing to use video format to tell it, not everyone is an expert journalist & skilled wordsmith, if he feels more comfortable in the video format (no surprise, he's a filmmaker) then that is what he should do. Plus I feel the visual medium works for what he's doing. 

This is such a major story (at least in our little niche of the world) that numerous others have covered this news as well, such as: Linus Torvalds, Newsshooter, CineD, RedSharkNews, ymcinema, NoFilmSchool, etc.... none of them are calling it "truther-style videos". 
 

Just checking:

- Linus Torvalds - I couldn't find any mention, not even on LKLM.org (the Linux development mailing list). Do you have a pointer?

- Newsshooter: a single mention in an article one year ago on the "highly inflated prices" of the RED mags, https://www.newsshooter.com/2019/07/17/red-drops-prices-on-mini-mags-media/, no mention or coverage of the new video.

- CineD/C5D: same as Newsshooter, https://www.cined.com/red-mini-mag-and-redmag-controversy-second-video/

etc.etc.

I could find no coverage of the recent video anywhere on those sites. 

So what do Jinni Tech's supposedly so disruptive revelations actually tell? That RED uses inflated prices for its hardware, that it has a shady history of re-registering its company in different states and with different legal constructions, and that it puts EULA clauses into its products that give it a free pass from liability which is likely in violation of laws.

Yes, I agree that this is shady business practice. But you know what? This is how the entire tech industry works (actually, how capitalism works but I don't want to get into a political debate here). Look at Apple, for example:  grossly inflated prices for its accessories and replacement parts, shutting out third-party repair technicians by legal clauses, throttling its iPhones with older batteries without telling customers (i.e. actually having lied to customers for years), locking you into its EULAs with the iCloud tie-in of its products (just like Google, Microsoft and everyone else - only taking Apple as one example here). And guess what: Until recently, Apple was officially not a U.S., but a Dutch- and Irish-registered company for reasons of tax evasion. 

So I stand by statement: Jinni Tech's revelations are on the level of truther videos and are only shocking to people who must have very naive and idealistics concepts of how businesses do business.  

46 minutes ago, EphraimP said:

So you were shooting to both cards at the same time, to have backups? 

Btw, how is the autofocus on the 50? 

Yes, shot on two cards at the same time for data security. But my experience matches that what is being reported elsewhere on the X-T4.

AF-C video autofocus with the X-T4 is unusable IMHO, both with the 50mm and the 18-55mm. I recorded one video with AF-C and had to throw away most of the footage afterwords. For strange reasons, the focus doesn't say locked on subjects, but pumps all the time - to such degrees that you won't see on the camera display, but only later on the big screen. 

I hope that Fuji will still fix this with firmware but won't hold my breath.

I had the camera overheat after 25 minutes of shooting a concert in ca. 23 degrees room temperature, 4K DCI h265 10bit 4:2:0 All-I on dual SD cards, with a Fujinon 50mm/f2 WR lens.

37 minutes ago, sanveer said:

Maybe you should watch all his videos, and preferably a few times. He explains everything rather well. With facts, history, law, court filings, technology etc. If you still think it's a conspiracy theory, maybe its beyond your ability to understand the basic jargon in reference.

I wouldn't call you a fanboy or something, because it's difficult to understand why you have a bias against someone who is clearly highlighting facts.

 

Then he should make the effort of writing down his insights in a well-structured paper/article, with an abstract, summary and clearly laid out arguments, instead of producing convoluted truther-style videos. Sorry, but they don't meet even minimum standards of journalism or research, and wouldn't pass any editor (except maybe at Infowars.com).

And I actually would applaud if someone in the industry would stand up and sue RED so that its RAW video patent goes away.

The RED subculture is a strange one, both on the company's side and on the side of its enemies. It's like getting into a cult like Scientology. I personally want to keep my mind clear of that nonsense.

3 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

The 16-55 is supposed to be the best but I have never used it for video as I use it in my stills camera at the same time. Must give it a go...

The 16-55 isn't stabilized. I use the more pedestrian 18-55mm/2.8-4, and its stabilizer works really well together with the X-T4's IBIS.

The real issue IMO is that Fuji's lens lineup is in dire need of a Mark II renewal (with the same optics but new electronics, like Canon did with the STM versions of its lenses) because it's not up to modern standards for contemporary autofocus systems, i.e. AF-C  with object/face tracking in both stills photography and video. 

This is the present-day achilles heel of the Fuji X system, along with the fact that they probably need a more modern chip architecture/manufacturing process to deal with heat management. Given the current state of the camera industry, I'm not too optimistic that such an overhaul of the product portfolio will ever happen. The thermal problems with the current generation of cameras (R5/6, X-T4 and even A7Siii) really indicates that companies are  cutting costs in chip R&D and manufacturing. But Fuji could mitigate that with a bigger body in an X-H2...

45 minutes ago, Video Hummus said:

He makes other points about REDs extensive litigious behavior towards other companies and individuals, including himself and JinniTech. Some of it for even having the word RED in your company name in a completely different industry. None of that is conspiracy theory. It’s all documented in the public record.

Yes, but this makes no real difference to how companies, industries (and capitalism for that matter) generally work. Companies sue each other over trademarks and patents all the time, especially in industries like tech and pharmaceuticals.

1 minute ago, MrSMW said:

@rawshooter so if you have every bit of stabilisation switched on and you are pretending to be like a human tripod (but not leaning on anything) how tripodic (new word) is the footage, especially at focal lengths of +50mm FF equiv?

Depends on the stability of your posture - sorry that I can't give a better comment. 

For using the X-T4 in walking situations, the YouTube videos of "Camera Conspiracies" give you a good idea (although I can't say that I'm a fan of that channel...)

7 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

Is the XT4 more prone to overheating than the XT3 then?

Anyone actually have any experience of this themselves?

Yes, and yes. I own the XT-4 and had the XT-3 before as a rental camera. The overheating shutdown of the X-T4 is a known fact, and openly communicated by Fuji. You're getting about 20-25 minutes video recording time out of the camera. 

Most likely, this is due to the IBIS system of the camera (which not only consumes additional power/generates heat, but also worsens dissipation of heat from the sensor). 

With all due respect, but unless "Jinnitech" manages to clearly put down and explain what is supposedly wrong with RED instead of churning out convoluted, suggestive and unclear mystery tales, this is all just some QAnon-style YouTube-"truther" conspiracy BS... 

IBIS on the X-T4 is - as perhaps typical for APS-C - somewhere in between the best MFT systems (Olympus & Panasonic GH5) and the not-so-effective full frame systems (Sony A7 series). 

The real drawback of the camera IMHO is (a) overheating and (b) the built-in Log profiles (F-Log and HLG) which have greatly reduced  color resolution in comparison to the standard color profiles. IMHO it also suffers from an overloaded and sometimes illogical camera menu - unfortunately, Fuji has gone the Sony route ever since it has packed more functionality into its cameras.

6 hours ago, Chris Whitten said:

New L mount lens, 85mm.

That said, native L mount lenses IMHO have zero advantages - I'd even say: only disadvantages - over adapted manual lenses when one uses the Sigma fp for video:

• autofocus and auto-iris aren't meaningfully usable in video mode;
• focus-by-wire sucks;
• so far, all Sigma "DC" lenses rely on geometric correction in software, which doesn't work with RAW video.