<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: New versions of Cinema Profile for DSLRs from CinePlus (video comparison with CineStyle)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gdmig-wideopencamera.com/just-the-cut/new-versions-of-cinema-profile-for-dslrs-from-cineplus-video-comparison-with-cinestyle-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gdmig-wideopencamera.com/cameras/new-versions-of-cinema-profile-for-dslrs-from-cineplus-video-comparison-with-cinestyle-2/</link>
	<description>Motion &#38; Stills</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 May 2021 02:38:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Noisyboy</title>
		<link>http://gdmig-wideopencamera.com/cameras/new-versions-of-cinema-profile-for-dslrs-from-cineplus-video-comparison-with-cinestyle-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1999</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Noisyboy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2012 16:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wideopencamera.com/?p=7323#comment-1999</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hey, nice post! I just got the Lightform profiles but haven&#039;t yet had a greadt deal of time to try them out against Cinestyle. Have you seen the Visioncolor PP yet? I also downloaded that and found that (on my limited tests, this seems to actually handle highlights even better! Would love to see all three against each other  but I just don&#039;t have the time myself right now :)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey, nice post! I just got the Lightform profiles but haven&#8217;t yet had a greadt deal of time to try them out against Cinestyle. Have you seen the Visioncolor PP yet? I also downloaded that and found that (on my limited tests, this seems to actually handle highlights even better! Would love to see all three against each other  but I just don&#8217;t have the time myself right now <img src="http://gdmig-wideopencamera.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/simple-smile.png" alt=":)" class="wp-smiley" style="height: 1em; max-height: 1em;" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex Walker</title>
		<link>http://gdmig-wideopencamera.com/cameras/new-versions-of-cinema-profile-for-dslrs-from-cineplus-video-comparison-with-cinestyle-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1998</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Alex Walker]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2012 16:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wideopencamera.com/?p=7323#comment-1998</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Definitely if you&#039;re doing it yourself. Though when you stretch the luminance values back to 709 it does introduce more banding on the Cinestyle footage. Shows up on the histogram. I haven&#039;t seen it fall apart yet, but something to keep an eye on. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Definitely if you&#8217;re doing it yourself. Though when you stretch the luminance values back to 709 it does introduce more banding on the Cinestyle footage. Shows up on the histogram. I haven&#8217;t seen it fall apart yet, but something to keep an eye on. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brent Pierce</title>
		<link>http://gdmig-wideopencamera.com/cameras/new-versions-of-cinema-profile-for-dslrs-from-cineplus-video-comparison-with-cinestyle-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1997</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brent Pierce]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2012 15:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wideopencamera.com/?p=7323#comment-1997</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nice. Been wanting to see a side-by-side comparison of these two. To me, Cinestyle is still the winner. Seemed alot smoother with the highlights.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice. Been wanting to see a side-by-side comparison of these two. To me, Cinestyle is still the winner. Seemed alot smoother with the highlights.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
