I don’t understand what’s going on.
We had a misunderstanding in 2006 which I thought was cleared up long ago.
I never called JJ a scam artist but it seems to suit him to keep saying that I did.
He was sweetness and light to me at NAB 2013.
Then he turns and attacks me, I guess he feels he needs to keep up the myth of the underdog attacked by the establishment.
Well Jim, one thing I’m not is part of the establishment!
Anyway, don’t you think it’s time to look for a better marketing approach? you’re a major camera manufacturer now and own a Hollywood studio.
I can sorta understand the bragging rights of hacking into a very visible system, and CML is definitely not that.
The initial hacker understood this, it’s why he promoted his hack as getting into a millionaire film producers personal site, as if!
He added a folder and some files and says he did nothing else.
Well, there are well over 1,000 damaged pages on CML, I’ve repaired 660 of them so far, some are relatively easy to fix, some are most definitely not and it looks like 6 are gone forever.
It’s obviously a viscous attack as the damage is dome mainly to the links to sponsors sites.
The original hacker was asking how to monetise his “achievement” suggestions included hijacking the site and holding it to ransom.
Someone certainly tried to hack my PayPal account and to change my passwords at various banks.
If someone ran down a high street smashing shop windows he’d be dealt with very quickly, if you could find any high streets still around!, but this online vandalism really isn’t taken seriously enough.
Well you pathetic fuck, well done, you’ve caused huge damage to an educational site that helps people progress, I hope you live the life you deserve.
You can’t win here.
It doesn’t matter how independent you make your test, how many independent people are present someone will always say that you’ve rigged it or cheated.
The test I published in 2002 comparing Fuji, Kodak F900 and Viper were criticised by Kodak because their images were soft, yeah and they were the ones who scanned them soft!
It didn’t matter anyway as the tests were about Dynamic Range not resolution.
As I test more and more and more I know what to expect and I’m rarely surprised anymore.
My latest tests, these are half of a 800/3200 comparison of these cameras and are in that page to show differences between the colour of the cameras.
There are a lot of tests available in CML and in most cases RAW files are there as well.
I see and hear comments all the time about accurate colour and gamma reproduction and I always find myself wondering why.
My job isn’t to make accurate pictures, its to make pictures that effect an audience.
They may be pretty, they may be brutal but the last thing they will be is accurate!
The pictures will reflect the story I am trying to tell or the product that I am trying to sell, they will have nothing to do with reality or accuracy.
I don’t want an accurate camera, just as I never wanted an accurate film stock, I want a camera that is malleable, that can produce images that can be changes in any way that I like.
I’ve had problems in the past because the curves I use to de-log images aren’t accurate, well of course they’re not! I never intended them to be.
These all, I repeat all have problems with colour and aliasing and moire due to the nature of the sensor.
There are ways to reduce these problems but nobody has yet avoided them all.
The sensor design is fundamentally at fault, it’s a pattern of RGB sensors with holes between the different colours.
These holes cause colour errors, someone has to guess what colour was in the hole, yeah I know they say they use sophisticated algorithms but that’s just a smart way of saying guesses.
The holes cause aliasing and moire which the manufacturers reduce with OLPF filters, optical low pass sound a lot better than diffusion doesn’t it?
Oh yeah, that’s what they’re doing, reducing the resolution to reduce the errors. Brilliant!
Just what I want, a camera with faulty colour and a diffused image…
I haven’t been here for a while and I will rectify that…
This post is about standards or the total lack of them or the understanding of them.
There’s just been a thread on CML about log and rec709, I have been horrified at the stupidity shown there and the fundamental lack of understanding.
Standards are standards, they’re not something you cherry pick bits you like out of and ignore the rest!
ITU Rec 709 is a specification, a standard, for HD television, as such it specifies colour space and gamma amongst other things.
Yes I include gamma, it’s specified at 2.22, not just any figure you feel like using because it makes your pictures look better!
Anything else is a personal monitoring setting and not rec709 so why do people insist on calling everything that isn’t rec709 rec709? could it be that their knowledge isn’t quite what they’d like you to think it is? or are they just dumb?
Then we get to log which is a fixed amount of data per stop of exposure change, easy really! Cineon is 90 bits per stop in a 10 bit environment, Alexa logc is 80 bits per stop.
If its not a fixed amount per stop its not log, its a different gamma!