<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_23_1315210</id>
	<title>GPL Firmware For Canon 5D Mk II Adds Features For Filmmakers</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1245764460000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:hudson@swcp.com" rel="nofollow">tramm</a> writes <i>"I've released an extension for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon\_EOS\_5D\_Mark\_II">Canon 5D Mark II</a> DSLR's video mode to enable functions that are useful for independent film makers.  While the camera produces a <a href="http://vincentlaforet.smugmug.com/gallery/6042742\_wZKiA#377930419\_dgxvY">great movie out of the box</a>, the audio is a severely limited.  My code adds features that should have been in the software, like on-screen stereo audio meters, live audio monitoring, reduced audio noise and crop marks for different formats.  <a href="http://vimeo.com/5267475">An introductory video</a> shows the new features in use and <a href="http://vimeo.com/5256305">an audio evaluation compares it to the stock firmware</a> with very good results. It's similar to the incredibly flexible <a href="http://chdk.wikia.com/">CHDK</a> software for Canon's point-and-shoot cameras, but targeted at the film makers using the 5D.  The Magic Lantern firmware is GPLed and new features will be written to make the camera even more useful on set.  There is a <a href="http://magiclantern.wikia.com/">wiki for documentation and development</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>tramm writes " I 've released an extension for the Canon 5D Mark II DSLR 's video mode to enable functions that are useful for independent film makers .
While the camera produces a great movie out of the box , the audio is a severely limited .
My code adds features that should have been in the software , like on-screen stereo audio meters , live audio monitoring , reduced audio noise and crop marks for different formats .
An introductory video shows the new features in use and an audio evaluation compares it to the stock firmware with very good results .
It 's similar to the incredibly flexible CHDK software for Canon 's point-and-shoot cameras , but targeted at the film makers using the 5D .
The Magic Lantern firmware is GPLed and new features will be written to make the camera even more useful on set .
There is a wiki for documentation and development .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tramm writes "I've released an extension for the Canon 5D Mark II DSLR's video mode to enable functions that are useful for independent film makers.
While the camera produces a great movie out of the box, the audio is a severely limited.
My code adds features that should have been in the software, like on-screen stereo audio meters, live audio monitoring, reduced audio noise and crop marks for different formats.
An introductory video shows the new features in use and an audio evaluation compares it to the stock firmware with very good results.
It's similar to the incredibly flexible CHDK software for Canon's point-and-shoot cameras, but targeted at the film makers using the 5D.
The Magic Lantern firmware is GPLed and new features will be written to make the camera even more useful on set.
There is a wiki for documentation and development.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438371</id>
	<title>Re:Why not? Plus - it's 'better' than HD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245769800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to the specs it only shoots video in 1080p, not 5616x3744. And, regarding the "why not" argument, that's kind of like saying "If you can drive a nail with a wrench, why not buy a wrench to drive your nails?" when a hammer costs the same price and would be much better suited to the task.</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the specs it only shoots video in 1080p , not 5616x3744 .
And , regarding the " why not " argument , that 's kind of like saying " If you can drive a nail with a wrench , why not buy a wrench to drive your nails ?
" when a hammer costs the same price and would be much better suited to the task .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the specs it only shoots video in 1080p, not 5616x3744.
And, regarding the "why not" argument, that's kind of like saying "If you can drive a nail with a wrench, why not buy a wrench to drive your nails?
" when a hammer costs the same price and would be much better suited to the task.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438167</id>
	<title>Not a video camera, so why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245768660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would anyone use this camera to make an independent film? It's an SLR still camera that only has a video mode thrown in as an afterthought (meant for taking a few minutes of video). You could get a real HD video camera, much better suited for filmmaking, for the same price.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would anyone use this camera to make an independent film ?
It 's an SLR still camera that only has a video mode thrown in as an afterthought ( meant for taking a few minutes of video ) .
You could get a real HD video camera , much better suited for filmmaking , for the same price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would anyone use this camera to make an independent film?
It's an SLR still camera that only has a video mode thrown in as an afterthought (meant for taking a few minutes of video).
You could get a real HD video camera, much better suited for filmmaking, for the same price.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438239</id>
	<title>Re:Not a video camera, so why?</title>
	<author>Hijacked Public</author>
	<datestamp>1245768960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The larger sensor, and the ability to use lenses one already owns.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The larger sensor , and the ability to use lenses one already owns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The larger sensor, and the ability to use lenses one already owns.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438151</id>
	<title>trying to give a shit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245768540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>failing</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>failing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>failing</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28444111</id>
	<title>Re:Why not? Plus - it's 'better' than HD</title>
	<author>nattt</author>
	<datestamp>1245790620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It might record 1080p (1920x1080) but the measured horizontal resolution is much more like 1400 or so... So not even full 1080p. If you actually try to shoot something with high detail so you can actually see that resolution, the result is ugly because of the line skipping, you get false colors appearing, and it sort of twitters and jumps as the detail falls into the rows that got skipped.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It might record 1080p ( 1920x1080 ) but the measured horizontal resolution is much more like 1400 or so... So not even full 1080p .
If you actually try to shoot something with high detail so you can actually see that resolution , the result is ugly because of the line skipping , you get false colors appearing , and it sort of twitters and jumps as the detail falls into the rows that got skipped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It might record 1080p (1920x1080) but the measured horizontal resolution is much more like 1400 or so... So not even full 1080p.
If you actually try to shoot something with high detail so you can actually see that resolution, the result is ugly because of the line skipping, you get false colors appearing, and it sort of twitters and jumps as the detail falls into the rows that got skipped.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438371</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28442075</id>
	<title>Shameless Self-Promotion</title>
	<author>Nom du Keyboard</author>
	<datestamp>1245783660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I seem to have stumbled into the Slashdot Classified Ads section. And I didn't even know that Slashdot had a Classified Ads section.<br> <br>
But given that its GPL code I will mute my criticism that this post is put up by the author, and not a more neutral review site.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to have stumbled into the Slashdot Classified Ads section .
And I did n't even know that Slashdot had a Classified Ads section .
But given that its GPL code I will mute my criticism that this post is put up by the author , and not a more neutral review site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to have stumbled into the Slashdot Classified Ads section.
And I didn't even know that Slashdot had a Classified Ads section.
But given that its GPL code I will mute my criticism that this post is put up by the author, and not a more neutral review site.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438199</id>
	<title>You called it what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245768780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Magic Lantern? Do you open sores fucktards know how to name something so it has any relevance at all to your software?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Magic Lantern ?
Do you open sores fucktards know how to name something so it has any relevance at all to your software ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Magic Lantern?
Do you open sores fucktards know how to name something so it has any relevance at all to your software?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438675</id>
	<title>what about stock firmware?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245771240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never undestood why don't manafactures already have all these features.<br>It's easier for them than for anyone else to develop this kind of things..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never undestood why do n't manafactures already have all these features.It 's easier for them than for anyone else to develop this kind of things. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never undestood why don't manafactures already have all these features.It's easier for them than for anyone else to develop this kind of things..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28440369</id>
	<title>Re:Ok, honest question here...</title>
	<author>Krupuk</author>
	<datestamp>1245777780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I recently got a MOV file from a 5D Mark II, which played fine on a Macbook.
<br> <br>
I tried to play it on a Windows machine (I don't own a Mac) and I only got a "-2048" error that "QuickTime doesn't understand the file format". I tried installing every codec package I know of and used different players (Windows Media Player, Media Player Classic, VLC...). I did the whole thing on different PCs without success.
<br> <br>
On some forums I read that there are problems with playing HD QuickTime under Windows. Does anyone know a solution how I can play that file under Windows? Or at least how I can convert the file to something playable under Windows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I recently got a MOV file from a 5D Mark II , which played fine on a Macbook .
I tried to play it on a Windows machine ( I do n't own a Mac ) and I only got a " -2048 " error that " QuickTime does n't understand the file format " .
I tried installing every codec package I know of and used different players ( Windows Media Player , Media Player Classic , VLC... ) .
I did the whole thing on different PCs without success .
On some forums I read that there are problems with playing HD QuickTime under Windows .
Does anyone know a solution how I can play that file under Windows ?
Or at least how I can convert the file to something playable under Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recently got a MOV file from a 5D Mark II, which played fine on a Macbook.
I tried to play it on a Windows machine (I don't own a Mac) and I only got a "-2048" error that "QuickTime doesn't understand the file format".
I tried installing every codec package I know of and used different players (Windows Media Player, Media Player Classic, VLC...).
I did the whole thing on different PCs without success.
On some forums I read that there are problems with playing HD QuickTime under Windows.
Does anyone know a solution how I can play that file under Windows?
Or at least how I can convert the file to something playable under Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28439939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28439135</id>
	<title>Re:Not a video camera, so why?</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1245772980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It depends what you're doing, but you're not going to get the depth of field with a real HD video camera that you can with a dSLR. And additionally, it's easier to chop down the image size to HD than it is to turn and HD video camera into something that takes decent photos.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends what you 're doing , but you 're not going to get the depth of field with a real HD video camera that you can with a dSLR .
And additionally , it 's easier to chop down the image size to HD than it is to turn and HD video camera into something that takes decent photos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends what you're doing, but you're not going to get the depth of field with a real HD video camera that you can with a dSLR.
And additionally, it's easier to chop down the image size to HD than it is to turn and HD video camera into something that takes decent photos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438431</id>
	<title>Most active forum - cinema5d.com</title>
	<author>Chuffpole</author>
	<datestamp>1245770100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you a 5D-II forum with a lot of activity, see <a href="http://www.cinema5d.com/search.php?search\_id=newposts" title="cinema5d.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.cinema5d.com/search.php?search\_id=newposts</a> [cinema5d.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you a 5D-II forum with a lot of activity , see http : //www.cinema5d.com/search.php ? search \ _id = newposts [ cinema5d.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you a 5D-II forum with a lot of activity, see http://www.cinema5d.com/search.php?search\_id=newposts [cinema5d.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28444319</id>
	<title>Re:Not a video camera, so why?</title>
	<author>theheadlessrabbit</author>
	<datestamp>1245748080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why would anyone use this camera to make an independent film?</p></div><p>the sensor size of 5D is the same as a piece of 35mm film, meaning you get much lower noise in low light.  Most importantly, you get a film-like depth of field in your shots.  This 'film-like' depth of field is a big deal for low budget filmmakers. Also, using SLR lenses gives the film maker far more flexibility and control of their shots, and a SLR lens will give you significantly better results. less barrel distortion, less chromatic aberration, and sharper pictures.</p><p>The Canon 5D mark II is a game changer in the amateur film-making world.  it can give you professional results that no other camera in the $5000 can touch.  (And I'm a Nikon man, so it really makes me feel dirty for admitting that.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would anyone use this camera to make an independent film ? the sensor size of 5D is the same as a piece of 35mm film , meaning you get much lower noise in low light .
Most importantly , you get a film-like depth of field in your shots .
This 'film-like ' depth of field is a big deal for low budget filmmakers .
Also , using SLR lenses gives the film maker far more flexibility and control of their shots , and a SLR lens will give you significantly better results .
less barrel distortion , less chromatic aberration , and sharper pictures.The Canon 5D mark II is a game changer in the amateur film-making world .
it can give you professional results that no other camera in the $ 5000 can touch .
( And I 'm a Nikon man , so it really makes me feel dirty for admitting that .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would anyone use this camera to make an independent film?the sensor size of 5D is the same as a piece of 35mm film, meaning you get much lower noise in low light.
Most importantly, you get a film-like depth of field in your shots.
This 'film-like' depth of field is a big deal for low budget filmmakers.
Also, using SLR lenses gives the film maker far more flexibility and control of their shots, and a SLR lens will give you significantly better results.
less barrel distortion, less chromatic aberration, and sharper pictures.The Canon 5D mark II is a game changer in the amateur film-making world.
it can give you professional results that no other camera in the $5000 can touch.
(And I'm a Nikon man, so it really makes me feel dirty for admitting that.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438267</id>
	<title>Why not? Plus - it's 'better' than HD</title>
	<author>Animaether</author>
	<datestamp>1245769200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not?<br>It's possible, they can do it, so why not do it?  I, for one, welcome custom camera firmwares.  The more the merrier - I know I had a reply on Slashdot before where I asked if there was a programmable camera; lo and behold, there is.. and there's some very fun projects coming out of it.  Why let the camera maker dictate what you can do with the camera, when you know that it is physically capable of so much more?  E.g. why limit exposure times to 2 seconds, when there's no physical reason you couldn't keep the shutter open for an hour? )</p><p>As for HD.. an HD camera, 1080i/p, is 1920x1080.</p><p>The 5D Mark 2 is 5616x3744.  That's larger than 4K cinema.  Let me put it differently.. that's larger than practically every single movie you see on 'the big screen' today (which are often finished at 2K, or post-effected at 2K and upressed to 3K).</p><p>Sure, a consumer might not exactly -need- 4K.  I'm not so sure they need HD - non-'HD' youtube resolution seems to be just fine for most people.  But, again, it's possible.. so why not?</p><p>RED, at one point, decided that movies could he shot all-digital and made their behemoths based around fairly expensive sensors... now Canon, Nikon, Kodak, SONY, etc. are realizing that their sensors are getting fast enough to do movies as well.. and they're taking full advantage of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not ? It 's possible , they can do it , so why not do it ?
I , for one , welcome custom camera firmwares .
The more the merrier - I know I had a reply on Slashdot before where I asked if there was a programmable camera ; lo and behold , there is.. and there 's some very fun projects coming out of it .
Why let the camera maker dictate what you can do with the camera , when you know that it is physically capable of so much more ?
E.g. why limit exposure times to 2 seconds , when there 's no physical reason you could n't keep the shutter open for an hour ?
) As for HD.. an HD camera , 1080i/p , is 1920x1080.The 5D Mark 2 is 5616x3744 .
That 's larger than 4K cinema .
Let me put it differently.. that 's larger than practically every single movie you see on 'the big screen ' today ( which are often finished at 2K , or post-effected at 2K and upressed to 3K ) .Sure , a consumer might not exactly -need- 4K .
I 'm not so sure they need HD - non-'HD ' youtube resolution seems to be just fine for most people .
But , again , it 's possible.. so why not ? RED , at one point , decided that movies could he shot all-digital and made their behemoths based around fairly expensive sensors... now Canon , Nikon , Kodak , SONY , etc .
are realizing that their sensors are getting fast enough to do movies as well.. and they 're taking full advantage of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not?It's possible, they can do it, so why not do it?
I, for one, welcome custom camera firmwares.
The more the merrier - I know I had a reply on Slashdot before where I asked if there was a programmable camera; lo and behold, there is.. and there's some very fun projects coming out of it.
Why let the camera maker dictate what you can do with the camera, when you know that it is physically capable of so much more?
E.g. why limit exposure times to 2 seconds, when there's no physical reason you couldn't keep the shutter open for an hour?
)As for HD.. an HD camera, 1080i/p, is 1920x1080.The 5D Mark 2 is 5616x3744.
That's larger than 4K cinema.
Let me put it differently.. that's larger than practically every single movie you see on 'the big screen' today (which are often finished at 2K, or post-effected at 2K and upressed to 3K).Sure, a consumer might not exactly -need- 4K.
I'm not so sure they need HD - non-'HD' youtube resolution seems to be just fine for most people.
But, again, it's possible.. so why not?RED, at one point, decided that movies could he shot all-digital and made their behemoths based around fairly expensive sensors... now Canon, Nikon, Kodak, SONY, etc.
are realizing that their sensors are getting fast enough to do movies as well.. and they're taking full advantage of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28440171</id>
	<title>Open Source?</title>
	<author>V!NCENT</author>
	<datestamp>1245777000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>With Canon, <b>we</b> can.</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>With Canon , we can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With Canon, we can.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28449365</id>
	<title>Re:Not a video camera, so why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245782040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has much better video quality than any camcorder or 35mm film, and its low-light capabilities exceed that of the best digital movie cameras. Its large sensor gives you better control over depth-of-field than even a regular 35mm movie camera. The Canon EF mount gives you access to better lenses than you'll find on a camcorder.</p><p>If you're a film maker, you probably don't care that you only get 12 minutes per shot. Many 35mm film stocks only come in sizes up to 1000ft (12 minutes, 6 lbs) anyway. A typical price for 12 minutes of film (and processing) is $750 for negative film or $1500 for positive film. Since you'd pay probably $1000/day for camera rental, the Canon could pay for itself on the first day of shooting.</p><p>The only real disadvantages of shooting a movie on the 5D Mark II are the fact that it shoots at 30fps (cinema is 24fps; TV is 29.97 or 25fps) and no Canon lenses offer geared focus or panning mechanisms like motion picture lenses.</p><p>dom</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has much better video quality than any camcorder or 35mm film , and its low-light capabilities exceed that of the best digital movie cameras .
Its large sensor gives you better control over depth-of-field than even a regular 35mm movie camera .
The Canon EF mount gives you access to better lenses than you 'll find on a camcorder.If you 're a film maker , you probably do n't care that you only get 12 minutes per shot .
Many 35mm film stocks only come in sizes up to 1000ft ( 12 minutes , 6 lbs ) anyway .
A typical price for 12 minutes of film ( and processing ) is $ 750 for negative film or $ 1500 for positive film .
Since you 'd pay probably $ 1000/day for camera rental , the Canon could pay for itself on the first day of shooting.The only real disadvantages of shooting a movie on the 5D Mark II are the fact that it shoots at 30fps ( cinema is 24fps ; TV is 29.97 or 25fps ) and no Canon lenses offer geared focus or panning mechanisms like motion picture lenses.dom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has much better video quality than any camcorder or 35mm film, and its low-light capabilities exceed that of the best digital movie cameras.
Its large sensor gives you better control over depth-of-field than even a regular 35mm movie camera.
The Canon EF mount gives you access to better lenses than you'll find on a camcorder.If you're a film maker, you probably don't care that you only get 12 minutes per shot.
Many 35mm film stocks only come in sizes up to 1000ft (12 minutes, 6 lbs) anyway.
A typical price for 12 minutes of film (and processing) is $750 for negative film or $1500 for positive film.
Since you'd pay probably $1000/day for camera rental, the Canon could pay for itself on the first day of shooting.The only real disadvantages of shooting a movie on the 5D Mark II are the fact that it shoots at 30fps (cinema is 24fps; TV is 29.97 or 25fps) and no Canon lenses offer geared focus or panning mechanisms like motion picture lenses.dom</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28439483</id>
	<title>Re:Ok, honest question here...</title>
	<author>skyride</author>
	<datestamp>1245774300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>.MOV is actually a fairly good format. It may not be open but NOTHING in the higher-end video editing spectrum is. Personally I used to do some small time recording of a local bands with a few DV cams. Just like some bands who wanted live demos, then often link it up with a stereomix. While I brought along 3 DV cameras with me, I'd often have people who'd recorded it on their digital cameras email me there videos and these were more often than not in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.MOV format. Most amateur editors/producers use Sony Vegas (I personally use Premiere Pro) which supports<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.MOV format. Infact the only editing program ive ever found that dosen't support<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.MOV is Windows Movie Maker which no self respecting editor would use in a million years anyway.

Me thinks you should stop putting videos of your brilliant nights out on Youtube, Nobody wants to see them.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>.MOV is actually a fairly good format .
It may not be open but NOTHING in the higher-end video editing spectrum is .
Personally I used to do some small time recording of a local bands with a few DV cams .
Just like some bands who wanted live demos , then often link it up with a stereomix .
While I brought along 3 DV cameras with me , I 'd often have people who 'd recorded it on their digital cameras email me there videos and these were more often than not in .MOV format .
Most amateur editors/producers use Sony Vegas ( I personally use Premiere Pro ) which supports .MOV format .
Infact the only editing program ive ever found that dose n't support .MOV is Windows Movie Maker which no self respecting editor would use in a million years anyway .
Me thinks you should stop putting videos of your brilliant nights out on Youtube , Nobody wants to see them .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.MOV is actually a fairly good format.
It may not be open but NOTHING in the higher-end video editing spectrum is.
Personally I used to do some small time recording of a local bands with a few DV cams.
Just like some bands who wanted live demos, then often link it up with a stereomix.
While I brought along 3 DV cameras with me, I'd often have people who'd recorded it on their digital cameras email me there videos and these were more often than not in .MOV format.
Most amateur editors/producers use Sony Vegas (I personally use Premiere Pro) which supports .MOV format.
Infact the only editing program ive ever found that dosen't support .MOV is Windows Movie Maker which no self respecting editor would use in a million years anyway.
Me thinks you should stop putting videos of your brilliant nights out on Youtube, Nobody wants to see them.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28439065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438197</id>
	<title>DSLR video...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245768780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, sounds like you've added some great functionality. Interesting read.</p><p>I have a T1i- the little brother to the 5d Mark II. Any thought on firmware for this model?</p><p>Aside from not being full frame, it also only does 1080P video @ 20FPS... I understand that it *can* do 30 but Canon crippled it as to not encroach on the 5D market. Has anyone seen any "updated" firmware to crank the frames for the T1i?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , sounds like you 've added some great functionality .
Interesting read.I have a T1i- the little brother to the 5d Mark II .
Any thought on firmware for this model ? Aside from not being full frame , it also only does 1080P video @ 20FPS... I understand that it * can * do 30 but Canon crippled it as to not encroach on the 5D market .
Has anyone seen any " updated " firmware to crank the frames for the T1i ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, sounds like you've added some great functionality.
Interesting read.I have a T1i- the little brother to the 5d Mark II.
Any thought on firmware for this model?Aside from not being full frame, it also only does 1080P video @ 20FPS... I understand that it *can* do 30 but Canon crippled it as to not encroach on the 5D market.
Has anyone seen any "updated" firmware to crank the frames for the T1i?
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28440367</id>
	<title>This is a great camera - just needs a nudge or two</title>
	<author>intensity</author>
	<datestamp>1245777780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I own the 5D Mark II and I love it, especially since Canon recently released the firmware to enable ISO, Aperature and Shutter Speed control in video mode. I work on indie film and professional video and I can tell you that even though this isn't a "video" camera, the full-frame sensor and the Canon line of lenses, especially the high-end primes, are a wonderful combination. Such shallow depth of field, such great color reproduction, and great low light sensitivity.</p><p>Most prosumer / consumer HD cameras can't touch the sensor and lens combo that this camera does, unless you get above 10K$ for your camera. Naturally, in indie film we want to get the best bang for the money, so this camera has been a godsend. A lot of companies like Redrock and Zacuto are now selling full rail systems with matte boxes and follow focus equipment for this and other DSLR's enabling a DP to utilize a DSLR like a traditional video or film motion picture camera.</p><p>One of the biggest issues with this third-party firmware is it has to be reinstalled every time you power down and power up the camera. I hope Canon sees what the community is doing and adds these features directly or at least supports the development of 3rd party firmware. We're still missing 24/25P, and a real Zebra function would be incredible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I own the 5D Mark II and I love it , especially since Canon recently released the firmware to enable ISO , Aperature and Shutter Speed control in video mode .
I work on indie film and professional video and I can tell you that even though this is n't a " video " camera , the full-frame sensor and the Canon line of lenses , especially the high-end primes , are a wonderful combination .
Such shallow depth of field , such great color reproduction , and great low light sensitivity.Most prosumer / consumer HD cameras ca n't touch the sensor and lens combo that this camera does , unless you get above 10K $ for your camera .
Naturally , in indie film we want to get the best bang for the money , so this camera has been a godsend .
A lot of companies like Redrock and Zacuto are now selling full rail systems with matte boxes and follow focus equipment for this and other DSLR 's enabling a DP to utilize a DSLR like a traditional video or film motion picture camera.One of the biggest issues with this third-party firmware is it has to be reinstalled every time you power down and power up the camera .
I hope Canon sees what the community is doing and adds these features directly or at least supports the development of 3rd party firmware .
We 're still missing 24/25P , and a real Zebra function would be incredible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I own the 5D Mark II and I love it, especially since Canon recently released the firmware to enable ISO, Aperature and Shutter Speed control in video mode.
I work on indie film and professional video and I can tell you that even though this isn't a "video" camera, the full-frame sensor and the Canon line of lenses, especially the high-end primes, are a wonderful combination.
Such shallow depth of field, such great color reproduction, and great low light sensitivity.Most prosumer / consumer HD cameras can't touch the sensor and lens combo that this camera does, unless you get above 10K$ for your camera.
Naturally, in indie film we want to get the best bang for the money, so this camera has been a godsend.
A lot of companies like Redrock and Zacuto are now selling full rail systems with matte boxes and follow focus equipment for this and other DSLR's enabling a DP to utilize a DSLR like a traditional video or film motion picture camera.One of the biggest issues with this third-party firmware is it has to be reinstalled every time you power down and power up the camera.
I hope Canon sees what the community is doing and adds these features directly or at least supports the development of 3rd party firmware.
We're still missing 24/25P, and a real Zebra function would be incredible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438163</id>
	<title>Re:My my my me me me ....</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1245768600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If somebody is going to hack together a custom firmware with all kinds of interesting features, and offer it to all of us for no money, it's really hard for me to get upset at them. Empty bravado is useless; but I'd take less humility and more software any day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If somebody is going to hack together a custom firmware with all kinds of interesting features , and offer it to all of us for no money , it 's really hard for me to get upset at them .
Empty bravado is useless ; but I 'd take less humility and more software any day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If somebody is going to hack together a custom firmware with all kinds of interesting features, and offer it to all of us for no money, it's really hard for me to get upset at them.
Empty bravado is useless; but I'd take less humility and more software any day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438831</id>
	<title>complete Canon EOS 5D Mark II coverage</title>
	<author>planetMitch</author>
	<datestamp>1245771840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hi y'all

If you're interested in the 5D mk ii, you should check out my blog and wiki -

<a href="http://planet5d.com/" title="planet5d.com" rel="nofollow">http://planet5d.com/</a> [planet5d.com] - the best 5D information on the planet!

We have had several posts on this story since it was 'announced' several weeks ago (yesterday's formal announcement was the first 'release' of the software to the public - but we've been covering it before that).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi y'all If you 're interested in the 5D mk ii , you should check out my blog and wiki - http : //planet5d.com/ [ planet5d.com ] - the best 5D information on the planet !
We have had several posts on this story since it was 'announced ' several weeks ago ( yesterday 's formal announcement was the first 'release ' of the software to the public - but we 've been covering it before that ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi y'all

If you're interested in the 5D mk ii, you should check out my blog and wiki -

http://planet5d.com/ [planet5d.com] - the best 5D information on the planet!
We have had several posts on this story since it was 'announced' several weeks ago (yesterday's formal announcement was the first 'release' of the software to the public - but we've been covering it before that).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438241</id>
	<title>Panasonic GH1 &amp; Consumer Video</title>
	<author>Iskender</author>
	<datestamp>1245769020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This GPL'd firmware sounds cool and the 5D2 is a cool camera. However, people who are interested in getting one solely for video should also look at the Panasonic GH1: it has stepless aperture control (with the right lens) and is in general made for video, unlike the 5D2 which has half-afterthought video.</p><p>The reason I mention the GH1 is that it's really the first digital system camera that's 1) Made for video 2) Costs below 1500-2000 euros. It would be nice if the firmware hack people could do it for some other brands than Canon too though...</p><p>The models won't matter soon though: all of this points to high quality video soon being available from lots of companies for anyone with 1000 euros to spend. Essentially, anyone with a decent income can soon only blame themselves for their video footage sucking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This GPL 'd firmware sounds cool and the 5D2 is a cool camera .
However , people who are interested in getting one solely for video should also look at the Panasonic GH1 : it has stepless aperture control ( with the right lens ) and is in general made for video , unlike the 5D2 which has half-afterthought video.The reason I mention the GH1 is that it 's really the first digital system camera that 's 1 ) Made for video 2 ) Costs below 1500-2000 euros .
It would be nice if the firmware hack people could do it for some other brands than Canon too though...The models wo n't matter soon though : all of this points to high quality video soon being available from lots of companies for anyone with 1000 euros to spend .
Essentially , anyone with a decent income can soon only blame themselves for their video footage sucking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This GPL'd firmware sounds cool and the 5D2 is a cool camera.
However, people who are interested in getting one solely for video should also look at the Panasonic GH1: it has stepless aperture control (with the right lens) and is in general made for video, unlike the 5D2 which has half-afterthought video.The reason I mention the GH1 is that it's really the first digital system camera that's 1) Made for video 2) Costs below 1500-2000 euros.
It would be nice if the firmware hack people could do it for some other brands than Canon too though...The models won't matter soon though: all of this points to high quality video soon being available from lots of companies for anyone with 1000 euros to spend.
Essentially, anyone with a decent income can soon only blame themselves for their video footage sucking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28439065</id>
	<title>Ok, honest question here...</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1245772740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can anyone explain to me <em>what</em> exactly is the fascination with QuickTime MOV format?</p><p>Kodak's cameras record video in MOV. Apparently Canon's cameras also record video in MOV.</p><p>It's a PITA because Apple is so stingy about licensing the codecs for its QuickTime formats (no, I don't want to buy QuickTime Pro). It makes it a major inconvenience if I want to actually edit the clips. So, why do I have to put up with this?</p><p>Sorry if this seems like a rant. If there's some reason why MOV seems to be favoured, I'm honestly curious as to what it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone explain to me what exactly is the fascination with QuickTime MOV format ? Kodak 's cameras record video in MOV .
Apparently Canon 's cameras also record video in MOV.It 's a PITA because Apple is so stingy about licensing the codecs for its QuickTime formats ( no , I do n't want to buy QuickTime Pro ) .
It makes it a major inconvenience if I want to actually edit the clips .
So , why do I have to put up with this ? Sorry if this seems like a rant .
If there 's some reason why MOV seems to be favoured , I 'm honestly curious as to what it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone explain to me what exactly is the fascination with QuickTime MOV format?Kodak's cameras record video in MOV.
Apparently Canon's cameras also record video in MOV.It's a PITA because Apple is so stingy about licensing the codecs for its QuickTime formats (no, I don't want to buy QuickTime Pro).
It makes it a major inconvenience if I want to actually edit the clips.
So, why do I have to put up with this?Sorry if this seems like a rant.
If there's some reason why MOV seems to be favoured, I'm honestly curious as to what it is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438985</id>
	<title>Re:Not a video camera, so why?</title>
	<author>iluvcapra</author>
	<datestamp>1245772440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just throwing this in:  a friend if mine was a DP on the last season of CSI and he'd demoed the 5dmk2 to see if it was usable for what they were doing.  His opinion was that the image looked great, but it NEEDED a 24P mode (it only shoots 30fps nominal right now).  Also, it only records MPEG-compressed movies, and there's no way to get a raw feed off it or at least something with less/more pro levels of compression. <br> <br>
I'm a sound guy, so my main complaints are that it doesn't have balanced wiring for the audio inputs, there is no digital audio input, and it's not clear how well the camera will hold sync if you were to do double-system recording, since the camera has no genlock/trilevel sync.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just throwing this in : a friend if mine was a DP on the last season of CSI and he 'd demoed the 5dmk2 to see if it was usable for what they were doing .
His opinion was that the image looked great , but it NEEDED a 24P mode ( it only shoots 30fps nominal right now ) .
Also , it only records MPEG-compressed movies , and there 's no way to get a raw feed off it or at least something with less/more pro levels of compression .
I 'm a sound guy , so my main complaints are that it does n't have balanced wiring for the audio inputs , there is no digital audio input , and it 's not clear how well the camera will hold sync if you were to do double-system recording , since the camera has no genlock/trilevel sync .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just throwing this in:  a friend if mine was a DP on the last season of CSI and he'd demoed the 5dmk2 to see if it was usable for what they were doing.
His opinion was that the image looked great, but it NEEDED a 24P mode (it only shoots 30fps nominal right now).
Also, it only records MPEG-compressed movies, and there's no way to get a raw feed off it or at least something with less/more pro levels of compression.
I'm a sound guy, so my main complaints are that it doesn't have balanced wiring for the audio inputs, there is no digital audio input, and it's not clear how well the camera will hold sync if you were to do double-system recording, since the camera has no genlock/trilevel sync.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438161</id>
	<title>Now, if companies made products like they should..</title>
	<author>GreenTech11</author>
	<datestamp>1245768600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If companies made products that functioned fine, people such as this guy would have nothing to do in their spare time.
<p>Sounds complicated and admittedly, I know very little about this, but congrats anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If companies made products that functioned fine , people such as this guy would have nothing to do in their spare time .
Sounds complicated and admittedly , I know very little about this , but congrats anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If companies made products that functioned fine, people such as this guy would have nothing to do in their spare time.
Sounds complicated and admittedly, I know very little about this, but congrats anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28441743</id>
	<title>Re:Not a video camera, so why?</title>
	<author>caseih</author>
	<datestamp>1245782640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The current trend is very much to do high-quality photography and video with the same camera body.  I expect that in the range we're dealing with (mid-range), we'll soon see a complete convergence with the sale of HD-video only cameras disappearing entirely.  It makes sense if you think about it too.  The quality of lenses available for SLR cameras is very good and readily available.  So while today the 5D has video as an afterthought, the future cameras will be natively built for good, high-quality, HD video.  I think Canon's latest offering has all this if I recall correctly.  A number of my photography friends were drooling over it because of this.</p><p>On the higher end, Red cameras are also moving towards cameras that do both video and stills very well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The current trend is very much to do high-quality photography and video with the same camera body .
I expect that in the range we 're dealing with ( mid-range ) , we 'll soon see a complete convergence with the sale of HD-video only cameras disappearing entirely .
It makes sense if you think about it too .
The quality of lenses available for SLR cameras is very good and readily available .
So while today the 5D has video as an afterthought , the future cameras will be natively built for good , high-quality , HD video .
I think Canon 's latest offering has all this if I recall correctly .
A number of my photography friends were drooling over it because of this.On the higher end , Red cameras are also moving towards cameras that do both video and stills very well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The current trend is very much to do high-quality photography and video with the same camera body.
I expect that in the range we're dealing with (mid-range), we'll soon see a complete convergence with the sale of HD-video only cameras disappearing entirely.
It makes sense if you think about it too.
The quality of lenses available for SLR cameras is very good and readily available.
So while today the 5D has video as an afterthought, the future cameras will be natively built for good, high-quality, HD video.
I think Canon's latest offering has all this if I recall correctly.
A number of my photography friends were drooling over it because of this.On the higher end, Red cameras are also moving towards cameras that do both video and stills very well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28447047</id>
	<title>Does the Panasonic GH1 support software freedom?</title>
	<author>jbn-o</author>
	<datestamp>1245759420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will the Panasonic GH1 run free software firmware like the Canon 5D Mark II apparently can?  If not, I don't see the advantage.  The story says that these hackers added features Canon didn't; that's added value to me.  That makes me want to consider a Canon 5D Mark II for a camera purchase.  Thanks to their work, I am not dependent on Canon in the way I am dependent on a proprietor for other hardware which lacks free software firmware.  Even if these hackers stop developing that firmware anyone willing to learn can pick up the job, or I can hire others to work on my behalf.  And because the software isn't just free but copylefted under the GPL, I stand a better chance of benefitting from any distributed/conveyed derivative work based on this firmware.  All of this future-proofing exists because of the freedoms of free software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will the Panasonic GH1 run free software firmware like the Canon 5D Mark II apparently can ?
If not , I do n't see the advantage .
The story says that these hackers added features Canon did n't ; that 's added value to me .
That makes me want to consider a Canon 5D Mark II for a camera purchase .
Thanks to their work , I am not dependent on Canon in the way I am dependent on a proprietor for other hardware which lacks free software firmware .
Even if these hackers stop developing that firmware anyone willing to learn can pick up the job , or I can hire others to work on my behalf .
And because the software is n't just free but copylefted under the GPL , I stand a better chance of benefitting from any distributed/conveyed derivative work based on this firmware .
All of this future-proofing exists because of the freedoms of free software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will the Panasonic GH1 run free software firmware like the Canon 5D Mark II apparently can?
If not, I don't see the advantage.
The story says that these hackers added features Canon didn't; that's added value to me.
That makes me want to consider a Canon 5D Mark II for a camera purchase.
Thanks to their work, I am not dependent on Canon in the way I am dependent on a proprietor for other hardware which lacks free software firmware.
Even if these hackers stop developing that firmware anyone willing to learn can pick up the job, or I can hire others to work on my behalf.
And because the software isn't just free but copylefted under the GPL, I stand a better chance of benefitting from any distributed/conveyed derivative work based on this firmware.
All of this future-proofing exists because of the freedoms of free software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438081</id>
	<title>My my my me me me ....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245768240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this post about technology or someone bragging about accomplishments...?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this post about technology or someone bragging about accomplishments... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this post about technology or someone bragging about accomplishments...?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28440239</id>
	<title>Canon CHDK awesome</title>
	<author>Gruff1002</author>
	<datestamp>1245777240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only does Canon let the consumer play around with the firmware they encourage it, as far as CHDK goes there are tons of parameters if its not working the way you want it to its your fault. I have taken shots of lightning where the motion detection script responds in 110ms. To take advantage of RAW (CRW file format) you have to be a borderline pro photographer and know how to convert them to DNG, preserving the 10 bit color, and then I use RawTherapee and possibly GIMP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only does Canon let the consumer play around with the firmware they encourage it , as far as CHDK goes there are tons of parameters if its not working the way you want it to its your fault .
I have taken shots of lightning where the motion detection script responds in 110ms .
To take advantage of RAW ( CRW file format ) you have to be a borderline pro photographer and know how to convert them to DNG , preserving the 10 bit color , and then I use RawTherapee and possibly GIMP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only does Canon let the consumer play around with the firmware they encourage it, as far as CHDK goes there are tons of parameters if its not working the way you want it to its your fault.
I have taken shots of lightning where the motion detection script responds in 110ms.
To take advantage of RAW (CRW file format) you have to be a borderline pro photographer and know how to convert them to DNG, preserving the 10 bit color, and then I use RawTherapee and possibly GIMP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438253</id>
	<title>Related story</title>
	<author>Megane</author>
	<datestamp>1245769080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This wasn't automatically picked up by slashdot's "related story" thingy:
</p><p> <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/06/2032216" title="slashdot.org">http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/06/2032216</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This was n't automatically picked up by slashdot 's " related story " thingy : http : //hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 08/05/06/2032216 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This wasn't automatically picked up by slashdot's "related story" thingy:
 http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/06/2032216 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28444053</id>
	<title>Re:Not a video camera, so why?</title>
	<author>waveformwafflehouse</author>
	<datestamp>1245790500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want the best sound when shooting in consumer/prosumer land,  run your own recorder and stripe* <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear\_timecode" title="wikipedia.org">timecode</a> [wikipedia.org].  While balanced inputs would be nice, you still would be stuck with cheap A/D converters and 16 Bit recording. On-camera sound is a convenience: it's second place to price/ video quality with most manufacturers.
<br> <br>Unless you can drop 50 grand on a multicamera Genlock setup, drift will always be potential issue with multicamera shoots. In my experience even the cheapest usable cameras may only drift a few frames an hour, which can easily be fixed in post by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clapperboard" title="wikipedia.org">slating</a> [wikipedia.org] at the beginning and end of long shoots.
<br> <br>*Stripe meaning record a track of audio timecode on each camera and recorder for sync in your post-production software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want the best sound when shooting in consumer/prosumer land , run your own recorder and stripe * timecode [ wikipedia.org ] .
While balanced inputs would be nice , you still would be stuck with cheap A/D converters and 16 Bit recording .
On-camera sound is a convenience : it 's second place to price/ video quality with most manufacturers .
Unless you can drop 50 grand on a multicamera Genlock setup , drift will always be potential issue with multicamera shoots .
In my experience even the cheapest usable cameras may only drift a few frames an hour , which can easily be fixed in post by slating [ wikipedia.org ] at the beginning and end of long shoots .
* Stripe meaning record a track of audio timecode on each camera and recorder for sync in your post-production software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want the best sound when shooting in consumer/prosumer land,  run your own recorder and stripe* timecode [wikipedia.org].
While balanced inputs would be nice, you still would be stuck with cheap A/D converters and 16 Bit recording.
On-camera sound is a convenience: it's second place to price/ video quality with most manufacturers.
Unless you can drop 50 grand on a multicamera Genlock setup, drift will always be potential issue with multicamera shoots.
In my experience even the cheapest usable cameras may only drift a few frames an hour, which can easily be fixed in post by slating [wikipedia.org] at the beginning and end of long shoots.
*Stripe meaning record a track of audio timecode on each camera and recorder for sync in your post-production software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28440855</id>
	<title>Re:DSLR video...</title>
	<author>MoxFulder</author>
	<datestamp>1245779520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Aside from not being full frame, it also only does 1080P video @ 20FPS... I understand that it *can* do 30 but Canon crippled it as to not encroach on the 5D market. Has anyone seen any "updated" firmware to crank the frames for the T1i?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div><p>I wouldn't be surprised to see CHDK come out with an un-crippled 1080P video mode for the T1I/500D.  There's unfortunately a hardware-based dealbreaker for that system, though: <b>no external mic input</b> at all.  Ugh.  Making it pretty much useless for anything beyond home videos, as the on-camera mic is mono, noisy, and low-quality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aside from not being full frame , it also only does 1080P video @ 20FPS... I understand that it * can * do 30 but Canon crippled it as to not encroach on the 5D market .
Has anyone seen any " updated " firmware to crank the frames for the T1i ?
: ) I would n't be surprised to see CHDK come out with an un-crippled 1080P video mode for the T1I/500D .
There 's unfortunately a hardware-based dealbreaker for that system , though : no external mic input at all .
Ugh. Making it pretty much useless for anything beyond home videos , as the on-camera mic is mono , noisy , and low-quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aside from not being full frame, it also only does 1080P video @ 20FPS... I understand that it *can* do 30 but Canon crippled it as to not encroach on the 5D market.
Has anyone seen any "updated" firmware to crank the frames for the T1i?
:)I wouldn't be surprised to see CHDK come out with an un-crippled 1080P video mode for the T1I/500D.
There's unfortunately a hardware-based dealbreaker for that system, though: no external mic input at all.
Ugh.  Making it pretty much useless for anything beyond home videos, as the on-camera mic is mono, noisy, and low-quality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438901</id>
	<title>Re:Not a video camera, so why?</title>
	<author>planetMitch</author>
	<datestamp>1245772140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, you may not think it is good for filmmaking, but the indies and the big names are flocking to this camera like moths to light. Check my blog, <a href="http://blog.planet5d.com/" title="planet5d.com" rel="nofollow">http://blog.planet5d.com/</a> [planet5d.com] for lots of posts from indies making movies, to big films like Harry Potter and Iron Man II and several TV shows using the 5D mk ii. The sensor is amazing and the DOF is killer when done right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you may not think it is good for filmmaking , but the indies and the big names are flocking to this camera like moths to light .
Check my blog , http : //blog.planet5d.com/ [ planet5d.com ] for lots of posts from indies making movies , to big films like Harry Potter and Iron Man II and several TV shows using the 5D mk ii .
The sensor is amazing and the DOF is killer when done right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you may not think it is good for filmmaking, but the indies and the big names are flocking to this camera like moths to light.
Check my blog, http://blog.planet5d.com/ [planet5d.com] for lots of posts from indies making movies, to big films like Harry Potter and Iron Man II and several TV shows using the 5D mk ii.
The sensor is amazing and the DOF is killer when done right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28447275</id>
	<title>Re:Not a video camera, so why?</title>
	<author>Falconhell</author>
	<datestamp>1245760860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not just use a balancing transformer at the input just like the mic has inside to create its balanced outs anyway.</p><p>Further balancing really only helps on very long cable runs, and for using 48V phantom, which can be done by injecting at the above mentioned transformer.</p><p>An XLR is a relatively heavy large connector with a few disadvantages when used including damage to the device it is attached to due to its weight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just use a balancing transformer at the input just like the mic has inside to create its balanced outs anyway.Further balancing really only helps on very long cable runs , and for using 48V phantom , which can be done by injecting at the above mentioned transformer.An XLR is a relatively heavy large connector with a few disadvantages when used including damage to the device it is attached to due to its weight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just use a balancing transformer at the input just like the mic has inside to create its balanced outs anyway.Further balancing really only helps on very long cable runs, and for using 48V phantom, which can be done by injecting at the above mentioned transformer.An XLR is a relatively heavy large connector with a few disadvantages when used including damage to the device it is attached to due to its weight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438985</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28444873</id>
	<title>Re:Why not? Plus - it's 'better' than HD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245750000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The 5D Mark 2 is 5616x3744.  That's larger than 4K cinema.  Let me put it differently.. that's larger than practically every single movie you see on 'the big screen' today (which are often finished at 2K, or post-effected at 2K and upressed to 3K).</p><p>Sure, a consumer might not exactly -need- 4K.  I'm not so sure they need HD - non-'HD' youtube resolution seems to be just fine for most people.  But, again, it's possible.. so why not?</p></div><p>Even if the 5D could shoot video at 5616 x 3744, the reason you wouldn't want to is because it'll be very slow to edit for a completely unnecessary amount of resolution. Even for a reasonably modern computer, After Effects and Premiere start to really slow down on 1080P. And if any aspiring filmmakers want to add visual effects and CG into their videos, if you keep it at 5616 x 3744, it means you have to render your CG scenes at a higher resolution, which will be slow. Additionally, the higher the resolution, the better your sets need to be dressed and attention to detail applied simply because you can see everything a lot better. This would be a bit laborious for amateur filmmakers. To me, it just makes sense to cap it at 1080P for amateur video.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The 5D Mark 2 is 5616x3744 .
That 's larger than 4K cinema .
Let me put it differently.. that 's larger than practically every single movie you see on 'the big screen ' today ( which are often finished at 2K , or post-effected at 2K and upressed to 3K ) .Sure , a consumer might not exactly -need- 4K .
I 'm not so sure they need HD - non-'HD ' youtube resolution seems to be just fine for most people .
But , again , it 's possible.. so why not ? Even if the 5D could shoot video at 5616 x 3744 , the reason you would n't want to is because it 'll be very slow to edit for a completely unnecessary amount of resolution .
Even for a reasonably modern computer , After Effects and Premiere start to really slow down on 1080P .
And if any aspiring filmmakers want to add visual effects and CG into their videos , if you keep it at 5616 x 3744 , it means you have to render your CG scenes at a higher resolution , which will be slow .
Additionally , the higher the resolution , the better your sets need to be dressed and attention to detail applied simply because you can see everything a lot better .
This would be a bit laborious for amateur filmmakers .
To me , it just makes sense to cap it at 1080P for amateur video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 5D Mark 2 is 5616x3744.
That's larger than 4K cinema.
Let me put it differently.. that's larger than practically every single movie you see on 'the big screen' today (which are often finished at 2K, or post-effected at 2K and upressed to 3K).Sure, a consumer might not exactly -need- 4K.
I'm not so sure they need HD - non-'HD' youtube resolution seems to be just fine for most people.
But, again, it's possible.. so why not?Even if the 5D could shoot video at 5616 x 3744, the reason you wouldn't want to is because it'll be very slow to edit for a completely unnecessary amount of resolution.
Even for a reasonably modern computer, After Effects and Premiere start to really slow down on 1080P.
And if any aspiring filmmakers want to add visual effects and CG into their videos, if you keep it at 5616 x 3744, it means you have to render your CG scenes at a higher resolution, which will be slow.
Additionally, the higher the resolution, the better your sets need to be dressed and attention to detail applied simply because you can see everything a lot better.
This would be a bit laborious for amateur filmmakers.
To me, it just makes sense to cap it at 1080P for amateur video.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438961</id>
	<title>Re:Panasonic GH1 &amp; Consumer Video</title>
	<author>BlackPignouf</author>
	<datestamp>1245772380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, it's not the same price point, but the 5D2 just beats the crap out of the GH1 for anything that should look professional.<br>Take a look at Reverie (TFV), and tell me if it would have been possible with GH1's sensor size.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , it 's not the same price point , but the 5D2 just beats the crap out of the GH1 for anything that should look professional.Take a look at Reverie ( TFV ) , and tell me if it would have been possible with GH1 's sensor size .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, it's not the same price point, but the 5D2 just beats the crap out of the GH1 for anything that should look professional.Take a look at Reverie (TFV), and tell me if it would have been possible with GH1's sensor size.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438251</id>
	<title>Great job!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245769080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two words: very impressive!</p><p>
&nbsp; Now just give us 24 fps and maybe externally controllable aperture and focus (ability to focus the lens to specific distance).</p><p>If those are possible, if necessary, I'll bow towards your generic direction several times per day.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>That, and a reasonable contribution to your paypal account.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two words : very impressive !
  Now just give us 24 fps and maybe externally controllable aperture and focus ( ability to focus the lens to specific distance ) .If those are possible , if necessary , I 'll bow towards your generic direction several times per day .
; ) That , and a reasonable contribution to your paypal account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two words: very impressive!
  Now just give us 24 fps and maybe externally controllable aperture and focus (ability to focus the lens to specific distance).If those are possible, if necessary, I'll bow towards your generic direction several times per day.
;)That, and a reasonable contribution to your paypal account.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438545</id>
	<title>No love for the 10d-50d series?</title>
	<author>vmxeo</author>
	<datestamp>1245770580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As awesome as these hacks for the Canon cameras are, as a 40d owner I'm feeling a bit left out. I have the CHDK firmware for my S3IS which is awesome; multiple exposure bracketing, RAW support, and scripts galore. And now extra movie support functions for the 5d. There was a guy a while back who hacked the 40d to shoot video, but he ended up getting hired by Nikon and couldn't release his code. Anyone know of any efforts to hack these cameras as well?</htmltext>
<tokenext>As awesome as these hacks for the Canon cameras are , as a 40d owner I 'm feeling a bit left out .
I have the CHDK firmware for my S3IS which is awesome ; multiple exposure bracketing , RAW support , and scripts galore .
And now extra movie support functions for the 5d .
There was a guy a while back who hacked the 40d to shoot video , but he ended up getting hired by Nikon and could n't release his code .
Anyone know of any efforts to hack these cameras as well ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As awesome as these hacks for the Canon cameras are, as a 40d owner I'm feeling a bit left out.
I have the CHDK firmware for my S3IS which is awesome; multiple exposure bracketing, RAW support, and scripts galore.
And now extra movie support functions for the 5d.
There was a guy a while back who hacked the 40d to shoot video, but he ended up getting hired by Nikon and couldn't release his code.
Anyone know of any efforts to hack these cameras as well?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28439939</id>
	<title>Re:Ok, honest question here...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245776160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MOV is just a container format.  It's really all h.264.  Demuxing the stream is easy and very fast and there are free tools to do that.  VLC plays/converts it out of the box.  VirtualDub can load it with a plugin.</p><p>There's absolutely no reason to use QuickTime Pro.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MOV is just a container format .
It 's really all h.264 .
Demuxing the stream is easy and very fast and there are free tools to do that .
VLC plays/converts it out of the box .
VirtualDub can load it with a plugin.There 's absolutely no reason to use QuickTime Pro .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MOV is just a container format.
It's really all h.264.
Demuxing the stream is easy and very fast and there are free tools to do that.
VLC plays/converts it out of the box.
VirtualDub can load it with a plugin.There's absolutely no reason to use QuickTime Pro.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28439065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28439515</id>
	<title>Re:Ok, honest question here...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245774420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MOV format is not that much of a problem. after all, it is very similar to MP4 container. What's important is the codec used for the video and in case of 5D Mark II it is H.264 (aka MPEG-4 AVC). There's no problem processing this in most video editing software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MOV format is not that much of a problem .
after all , it is very similar to MP4 container .
What 's important is the codec used for the video and in case of 5D Mark II it is H.264 ( aka MPEG-4 AVC ) .
There 's no problem processing this in most video editing software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MOV format is not that much of a problem.
after all, it is very similar to MP4 container.
What's important is the codec used for the video and in case of 5D Mark II it is H.264 (aka MPEG-4 AVC).
There's no problem processing this in most video editing software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28439065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438325</id>
	<title>Re:Not a video camera, so why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245769560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>5D mark 2 is easily the BEST image quality "video camera" money can buy for less than about $100 000.  And as an added bonus, you can shoot great stills.</p><p>It's really that simple.</p><p>HD video cams, professional or otherwise, simply cannot touch its image quality, and offer very limited amount of depth of field control.</p><p>There are several after market add-ons meant to make 5Dmk2 more video camera like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>5D mark 2 is easily the BEST image quality " video camera " money can buy for less than about $ 100 000 .
And as an added bonus , you can shoot great stills.It 's really that simple.HD video cams , professional or otherwise , simply can not touch its image quality , and offer very limited amount of depth of field control.There are several after market add-ons meant to make 5Dmk2 more video camera like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5D mark 2 is easily the BEST image quality "video camera" money can buy for less than about $100 000.
And as an added bonus, you can shoot great stills.It's really that simple.HD video cams, professional or otherwise, simply cannot touch its image quality, and offer very limited amount of depth of field control.There are several after market add-ons meant to make 5Dmk2 more video camera like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28443207</id>
	<title>Re:Why not? Plus - it's 'better' than HD</title>
	<author>dargaud</author>
	<datestamp>1245787560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I, for one, welcome custom camera firmwares</p></div><p>I would too. I'm a photographer and a pro embedded software writer, but I have no idea how to write (or, better, 'correct') a firmware for a camera. I have written out long lists of suggestions to the makers of my <a href="http://www.gdargaud.net/Photo/Matos.html" title="gdargaud.net">cameras</a> [gdargaud.net], obviously to no avail. Some things would be trivial one liners in the firmware code. But how do you get started ? Can you decompile a firmware update ? Probably not. Can you get the source code of a Nikon/Canon/Ricoh/etc firmware ? Probably not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , welcome custom camera firmwaresI would too .
I 'm a photographer and a pro embedded software writer , but I have no idea how to write ( or , better , 'correct ' ) a firmware for a camera .
I have written out long lists of suggestions to the makers of my cameras [ gdargaud.net ] , obviously to no avail .
Some things would be trivial one liners in the firmware code .
But how do you get started ?
Can you decompile a firmware update ?
Probably not .
Can you get the source code of a Nikon/Canon/Ricoh/etc firmware ?
Probably not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, welcome custom camera firmwaresI would too.
I'm a photographer and a pro embedded software writer, but I have no idea how to write (or, better, 'correct') a firmware for a camera.
I have written out long lists of suggestions to the makers of my cameras [gdargaud.net], obviously to no avail.
Some things would be trivial one liners in the firmware code.
But how do you get started ?
Can you decompile a firmware update ?
Probably not.
Can you get the source code of a Nikon/Canon/Ricoh/etc firmware ?
Probably not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438627</id>
	<title>moire patterns?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245770940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the wikipedia page:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The 21 megapixel sensor is downsampled to HD resolution by only using every third line and 4:2:0 chroma subsampling[8], leading to concern about Moir&#195;&#169; patterns in recorded video</p></div><p>Does the software address this? Or is it a non-issue?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the wikipedia page : The 21 megapixel sensor is downsampled to HD resolution by only using every third line and 4 : 2 : 0 chroma subsampling [ 8 ] , leading to concern about Moir     patterns in recorded videoDoes the software address this ?
Or is it a non-issue ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the wikipedia page:The 21 megapixel sensor is downsampled to HD resolution by only using every third line and 4:2:0 chroma subsampling[8], leading to concern about MoirÃ© patterns in recorded videoDoes the software address this?
Or is it a non-issue?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1315210_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28444319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1315210_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1315210_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1315210_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28439483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28439065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1315210_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1315210_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28439515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28439065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1315210_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28440855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1315210_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28447047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1315210_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28439135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1315210_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28440239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1315210_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28444111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1315210_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28443207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1315210_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1315210_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28440369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28439939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28439065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1315210_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1315210_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28447275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1315210_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28441743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1315210_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28444873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1315210_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28444053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_23_1315210_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28449365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_1315210.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438197
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28440855
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_1315210.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438167
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28449365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438267
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28444873
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28443207
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438371
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28444111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28444319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28441743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28439135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438985
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28444053
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28447275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438239
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_1315210.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28447047
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_1315210.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438161
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_1315210.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28439065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28439515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28439939
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28440369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28439483
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_1315210.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438163
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_1315210.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28440239
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_23_1315210.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_23_1315210.28438431
</commentlist>
</conversation>
