A99 #2 vs EM5 test - part deux

that's the first nail anyone here has hit on the head since the inception of the thread.

I no video guy, but the video I get is awesome.  But that's just me in my tests.

I have an a99 for stills shots, and an a77, and an a100.  And a avchd Sony handycam with the Carl Zeiss lens.

I still do not, in any way, understand the point of coming in a peeping someone's pixels.  We don't know the software stream, the computer, the post processing, the rendering, or any of the other required information to make or pass judgement on the result.

Waste of time, I guess you have more than I.

On my iMac computer, all looks just handy dandy, and when transferred to a blue ray player, the results CAN rival that of many movies/shows I've watched.

I'm not suggesting Planet Earth looks better when shot by ME, but I can come close.

Even a 20 second TV clip gets HOURS and HOURS of work.

I spent a morning once walking to a door from a driveway and knocking.  4 hours, just to get out of the car 20 times, when to put on my hat, how to walk, knock on the door, put my foot in it.  Then they spliced stuff together and had me do the voice over at the door, about 10 times.

The average Joe thinks making a good clip might be one take.  Nope, 3 or 4 cameras, angles, over the shoulder, move, move more, watch it on 6 or 8 monitors in a truck, it's insane.

The only easy thing I did was scripted at my desk in the investigations room.

And did I mention changing lenses?  Filters?  Crazy.  Then do more in post.

4 days shooting for 18 minutes of investigative work shown on national TV.  No wonder the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. has a 1 billion buck budget.

Imagine how long it is taking to get the Maple Leafs to win the cup?  Since '67.  Can't get it in the can!

Retired forensic photographer.
London, Ontario, Canada.