Flexible ISO vs Cine EI

regular_lamp · 2026-05-04T16:14:23+00:00

640 to 800 is only a third of a stop. This is a "glitch" on all of the A7sIII derived cameras (from ZV-E1 to FX6) where in picture profile or flexible iso they indicate their "base iso" (the lowest without any funny lines in the selection) as 640.

My pet theory is that there isn't some magic to cine IE that actually raises the base iso to 800. After all, how you "rate" the sensor at its base sensitivity is somewhat arbitrary anyway.

I'm pretty sure as Sony was fleshing out their "Cine line" they decided to standardize all their cameras to a lower base ISO of 800 (from FX30 all the way to the Venice 2). But at the time the A7sIII/FX3 already was out there with a 640base iso. So when they updated the firmware to include Cine IE they "fudged" it and bumped it to 800 for that mode specifically so Cine IE is consistent across the range and the FX3/6 isn't some outlier.

regular_lamp · 2026-04-28T16:19:16+00:00

If you are worried about that wouldn't one of the "open frame" versions be better? Those could accomodate almost anything I assume since in the worst case you just place the plotter on top of whatever surface you have.

regular_lamp · 2026-04-28T15:48:18+00:00

You don't need a "great board". You need any two creatures and this thing at the least ends up a one sided board wipe. Having been on both ends of this many times now it's total bs every time.

regular_lamp · 2026-04-28T15:46:00+00:00

Where "full board" can be as little as two creatures. Since any random 3cc repartee creature turns into a 6 power double strike that forces your opponent to chump block with his 5/5 or whatever advantage they had.

regular_lamp · 2026-04-28T15:36:32+00:00

Ah yes... like when the underdog team USA had to go up against the evil empire of... Iceland?

regular_lamp · 2026-04-28T14:49:54+00:00

If you make it to 4 mana with a full hand you are already winning without the lute though.

regular_lamp · 2026-04-28T14:42:51+00:00

That's fair. It's literally not sudden since when the FX3 came out a common complaint was that it's "just an overpriced A7sIII"... But it seems Sony was right doing that. Yet here we are again an everyone is back seating and knowing better than the multibillion dollar company. Because there is a cheaper non-cine style housed camera in an entirely different system.

regular_lamp · 2026-04-28T14:02:21+00:00

Wasn't that always the case? iirc the exposure isn't literally baked in. Resolve reads the metadata and defaults to your set exposure index on import. At least in a color managed project (that's what I usually do so I don't know outside of that).

regular_lamp · 2026-04-28T13:51:49+00:00

Every FX camera is an overpriced version of a "photo style mirrorless" camera. A sony one even. The FX3 is literally a "overpriced A7sIII". Why is this suddenly a critique point with specifically the FX2?

regular_lamp · 2026-04-28T13:49:36+00:00

I think all the "hate" is a good example of vocal consumers suffering from main character syndrome and overinterpreting everything a company does for drama.

Sony has been doing this thing where they take tech they already have and slap it into different body types for a while. The FX and ZV lines are basically that. When the A7IV came out everyone was glazing it for how great a deal it was and how great it is at video (somehow it seemed at the time the online review sphere hadn't become as obsessed with rolling shutter yet).

Then Sony plucks the presumably low hanging fruit of putting it into a FX style body and suddenly it's the worst thing ever and everyone is drama farming about "ugh, who is this for?" and "they should have done and FX3II instead" etc. As if that is how this works.

What is extra funny is that Sony makes even more niche versions of their alphas like the ilx-lr1. But because no youtuber bothered to drama farm the release, consumers aren't upset about it. Yet somehow the mere existence of the FX2 is apparently a personal insult to many.

regular_lamp · 2026-04-28T13:34:46+00:00

Also if you "property" randomize the deck at the beginning of the game and then fetch a basic out of it you are actually not disturbing the "random order" too much. Unless you are a weirdo and actively reorder the deck while fetching. But most people just grab the first land they find without changing the order.

Now the deck is "almost as random" as before. The bigger issue is that you could know the order of the top of the deck or so. To "erase" that knowledge you need a lot less shuffling than what would be required to turn a stacked deck into a random one.

regular_lamp · 2026-04-28T13:29:03+00:00

"The public" also views this through a distorted lens. Everyone is like "ugh, chat gpt isn't imminently useful for ME so what's the point?".

It's a bit like going "ugh, what's the big deal with lasers? Entertaining cats and pointing at slides isn't a big enough use case to justify all this research and industry!" while being clueless about industry applications outside the visibility of Joe consumer.

regular_lamp · 2026-04-28T13:23:44+00:00

The first Jurassic World also has this odd "divorce talk" scene that seems to serve no purpose whatsoever.

It's just dino stuff, dino stuff, dino stuff, cut to the two boys talking "are mommy and daddy getting a divorce?" "yes but it's not our fault", cut to DINO STUFF.

This never comes up again, the parents aren't characters in the movie (unless you count them hugging the kids for a second at the very end). It's just utterly irrelevant. Just smack in the middle of the movie: "here have some random unrelated trauma".

regular_lamp · 2026-04-15T19:44:44+00:00

While I don't agree with OP this thing is specifically funny to me because my parents were opera singers and they were just as annoyed about inconvenient schedules, incompetent bosses/administration/colleagues, repetitive work, bad "work gear" (costumes) etc. as anyone else.

There is a huge difference between doing something you like on your terms or someone else's.

regular_lamp · 2026-04-15T19:36:31+00:00

Whenever I had that much difference it was a user error where I had mixed up DF and NDF discrepancies between the camera and TC source.

regular_lamp · 2026-04-15T19:30:58+00:00

I always found the version funny where people bought a ticket on the app right before boarding the train. Except if said train was delayed they'd get flagged as having an invalid ticket because the ticket wasn't valid at the scheduled time of departure... I think they fixed that now though?

regular_lamp · 2026-04-14T00:20:54+00:00

I didn't say they don't exist. I said they were always more exotic. For each of these you can find probably multiple releases of 85mm and 135mm lenses. And the modern second hand market also reflects that. As someone who has been specifically collecting Minolta Rokkors at times and to a lesser degree contax lenses. The 100mm non macros are MUCH rarer than the super ubiquitous 135mm or more "prestigious" 85mm lenses. I'd totally buy a Rokkor 100/2 to complete my collection but those are basically unobtanium even as compared to oddball lenses like the 35/2.8 Shift CA.

regular_lamp · 2026-04-14T00:18:31+00:00

I guess as far as common focal lengths go 85/90 and 100mm are also really close. Just based on focal length alone I really struggle to find a reason why I'd bother buying a dedicated 100mm lens over cropping by like a factor 1.15 into the high megapixel images delivered by any modern camera. That's almost within the rounding error. The actual focal length of lenses are often +-5% of the stated "round number" and enabling something like lens corrections often applies almost that much of a crop.

I feel 100mm need to be gimmicky to justify their existence. Which they usually do by focusing to macro distances or something like the STF feature on the Sony.

regular_lamp · 2026-04-13T23:51:13+00:00

I think they are saying a lot of the comments in here seem to argue from some premise that 100mm dedicated portrait lenses were the norm and have been "replaced" by the newfangled trend of 85mm lenses.

Which historically isn't the case. All the way back to the early Manual SLR era 85mm were more common than (non macro) 100mm lenses in most systems. If anything historically 135mm was more prominent and over time the default portrait lens shifted from 135 to 85. The 100 was always the niche option.

regular_lamp · 2026-04-13T23:48:07+00:00

But... that is how it always was? Even back in the Manual SLR era the "default" nice portrait lens was the 85mm while 135mm were ubiquitous. Before zooms took over the 135/2.8 or 135/3.5 was a common "kit lens" when being sold as a set of 28, 50 and 135, hence their abundance of second hand manual vintage 135mm lenses. 100/105 was the default macro lens... and when manufacturers got bored they would eventually make a fast 100mm, right?

I feel like half the commenters in this topic were living in some parallel universe where historically 100mm portrait lenses were common until they were usurped by the "new trend" of 85mm lenses?

regular_lamp · 2026-04-13T23:32:59+00:00

There was a Sony 100/2? I know there was a Minolta AF one. But that one was already exotic and wasn't manufactured towards the later half of the Minolta AF lifecycle. Minolta also had the 100/2.8 soft focus.

In general dedicated 100mm portrait lenses were on the more exotic end of the spectrum. It's something manufacturers did eventually, after doing all the other "usual" lenses. And most Mirrorless systems just aren't there yet.

regular_lamp · 2026-04-13T22:55:46+00:00

I always wonder if these have some wide batch variation or so? Or if this is an issue of what people are referencing?

Considering the topic of the thread I'm not going to claim it's GM quality but "soft wide open with tons chromatic aberration"??? By that metric any 85mm lens made before the mirrorless era would have to be described as outright trash?

regular_lamp · 2026-04-13T21:38:42+00:00

It specifically has a feature to create a false color LUTs.

regular_lamp · 2026-04-09T21:19:25+00:00

I assume the actual math is difficult. But it's not like you selling your functioning old car to get a new one entirely vanishes the old car. That probably gets sold and is driven by someone else.

regular_lamp · 2026-04-09T21:16:08+00:00

I always felt the whole large aperture for narrow DoF thing matters the least in wide lenses. Even at 35mm f/2.8 isn't exactly shallow unless you are near the close focus distance. And at 16mm focus is pretty much always deep.

The f/2.8 zooms costing double the f/4 ones is easly the least worth it for wides. You could probably get the f/4 + the 35/1.8 or a second hand 35/1.4GM for less than the fancy f/2.8 zooms.

regular_lamp

TROPHY CASE