Black Friday 2021 Deals

I'd just get the 18TB for $142 more.

6 more TBs could come in handy for the small additional price if you're going large-capacity HDD.

Or the 14TB one is only $52 more (or $102 more for the 16TB).
 
I hope you'll reconsider that and join me in applying downward price pressure! the 18TB is $18.89/TB
 
I am a principle stickler with some things, but the cost of this is too low to care in the grand scheme in which we're spending 2x-3x-4x the price on camera accessories.

18TB for a few hundred would probably last me, personally, a lifetime.
 
the cost would last you or the drive would last you? I would like it if storage costs would at least keep (inverse) pace with bitrate increases. 10 years ago, 50Mbps was considered a professional bitrate for HD. Today, 1Gbps and higher are common capture bitrates. 4K 60p ProRes RAW is 1.68Gbps. And now we're talking about going to 8K.

spending a lot of money on camera accessories seems like a good reason to SAVE money on storage, not spend more on it. my modus operandi is always to spend as much as necessary and as little as possible
 
Your growing collection of E-mounts and a GM or two begs to differ...

Were they necessary... :evil:
 
ahalpert said:
Cinematch is on sale for $99 for a single-program plugin: https://www.cinematch.com/purchase?g...BoCtmwQAvD_BwE

$149 for a bundle of program plugins.

As I recall, it was offered for a limited-time discount of $139 for the FCPX standalone plugin when they launched it for FCPX. The regular price is $179 for a single plugin

Filmconvert software is also on sale from the same company
Click to expand...

Doesn't Cinematch work only on RAW files?
 
If that were true, the irony is that most people shooting RAW wouldn't use it as they are likely diving into their own deep color grade.

It's used to match many non-RAW cameras.
 
NorBro said:
Your growing collection of E-mounts and a GM or two begs to differ...

Were they necessary... :evil:
Click to expand...

they were necessary to get superior rendering and autofocus performance, both of which can lead to more $$$

but I have been sitting on the fence eyeing a GM 135 purchase, balancing out the cost and the utility... not sure I really need it, or that it would make a massive improvement in my current operation. nicer rendering than the tamron 70-180 to be sure, but you can't zoom. only gain a stop and change in DOF. tamron already has AF that doesn't leave me wanting. something like a GM 100mm f/1.4 would be more useful to me, I think. But if the 135 GM were $500 then I'd already have it. the 50 f/1.2 GM has been such a wonderful investment. clients ask me what the lens is when they see the footage
 
You got a call yesterday about a potential wedding only using the 50mm...they were wondering if you are up for the challenge...
 
NorBro said:
If that were true, the irony is that most people shooting RAW wouldn't use it as they are likely diving into their own deep color grade.

It's used to match many non-RAW cameras.
Click to expand...

Well, on a review it turns out my memory served me well.
On this thread:
https://www.dvxuser.com/forum/post-p...3944-cinematch
Reply #5 by John Parker from FilmConvert says:
John Parker said:
CineMatch initially supports only Log and RAW profiles on the cameras in our library, as we need to ensure the matching engine has enough data to create an adequate match, so any camera that is capable of shooting in a Log profile will eventually be supported.
Click to expand...

So, does CineMatch work also on non-LOG and non-RAW files?
 
NorBro said:
You got a call yesterday about a potential wedding only using the 50mm...they were wondering if you are up for the challenge...
Click to expand...

I've done weddings that were 50% shot with 50mm. Now with 2 gimbals and cameras, I find myself gravitating more towards something like 50/70-180 or 24/85 coverage, (the latter of which is pretty common 2-lens approach amongst wedding photographers). or 35/85, but my 35 1.4 is a samyang that I'm a little ambivalent about. it would be cool to own a GM f/1.2 35 and 85 if they end up producing them...
 
Joshua_G said:
Well, on a review it turns out my memory served me well.
On this thread:
https://www.dvxuser.com/forum/post-p...3944-cinematch
Reply #5 by John Parker from FilmConvert says:


So, does CineMatch work also on non-LOG and non-RAW files?
Click to expand...

He's just saying that the software needs a logarithmic curve (doesn't need to be RAW) or RAW files (always has log option) to be able to use it which makes sense because the software needs as much information, latitude as possible to match cameras.

It is useless with baked-in color e.g. a "Standard" picture profile from a Canon or Sony...if that's what you're asking but not sure as that's a given.

Most log cameras aren't RAW cameras and most cameras don't shoot RAW (although many do externally now and eventually many more will internally once certain patents expire).

___

So, in short, you do need log but you don't need RAW.

It would be a terrible business decision to have it only work with RAW because seriously barely anyone would use it (as mentioned and IMO) when NLEs like Resolve-FCP-Premiere having real RAW controls rather than "RAW-like" controls as they describe it on their site.
 
re: Cinematch, I believe the primary purpose is to shoot multiple cameras in LOG and then get them to a matching starting place before beginning your grade. which is in itself hugely useful. I think there are too many variables involved in trying to program it to match different cameras' SOOC looks. maybe standards like s-cinetone could be incorporated, who knows
 
NorBro said:
He's just saying that the software needs a logarithmic curve (doesn't need to be RAW) or RAW files (always has log option) to be able to use it which makes sense because the software needs as much information, latitude as possible to match cameras.

It is useless with baked-in color e.g. a "Standard" picture profile from a Canon or Sony...if that's what you're asking but not sure as that's a given.

Most log cameras aren't RAW cameras and most cameras don't shoot RAW (although many do externally now and eventually many more will internally once certain patents expire).

___

So, in short, you do need log but you don't need RAW.

It would be a terrible business decision to have it only work with RAW because seriously barely anyone would use it (as mentioned and IMO) when NLEs like Resolve-FCP-Premiere having real RAW controls rather than "RAW-like" controls as they describe it on their site.
Click to expand...

Thanks, going to purchase the DaVinci Resolve plugin.
 
ahalpert said:
$198 for a WD 12TB HDD at B&H deal zone today. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...esktop_hd.html
Click to expand...

I spotted this deal a few days ago and bought two along with 2 Sandisk 2TB SSDs which were heavily discounted. Hard drives and electric tooth brushes are about all I buy on Black Friday.

morgan_moore said:
Fine examples of things that dont hold thier own in the market. Sorry the Prolicght is about 10x the cost of godox and 10% better (puts head down for response)
Click to expand...
Its a bit more than 10% better LOL. Chalk meet cheese.
 
ahalpert said:
"better" is hard to quantify. if something makes all of your footage better, is it only 10% better or 100% better? Or maybe it pushes you over a threshold from misery to bliss or unusable to usable.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Better is an invisible.

If those lights were the same price as godox Id have them. If they were 25% more Id have them, 30|%? 40%? 500% - At some point I would not have them.

Clearly someone feels that the may shift with a 30% price reduction.. so they were probably initially 30% too much?

I think they do some great stuff.. that is hard to cover on the rental/additional day rate and therefore dont sit in many worlds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top