Subforums
16,725 topics in this forum
-
- 5.7k replies
- 1.2m views
-
- 1.7k replies
- 347.5k views
-
- 0 replies
- 7k views
-
- 14 replies
- 260 views
-
- 30 replies
- 582 views
-
- 40 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 3 replies
- 382 views
-
- 0 replies
- 59 views
-
- 235 replies
- 14.8k views
-
- 52 replies
- 2.1k views
-
- 1 reply
- 147 views
-
- 1k replies
- 123.1k views
-
- 53 replies
- 4.2k views
-
- 17 replies
- 1.8k views
-
- 30 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 38 replies
- 5.8k views
-
- 442 replies
- 31k views
-
- 16 replies
- 2.2k views
-
- 18 replies
- 1.8k views
-
- 10 replies
- 874 views
-
- 78 replies
- 13.3k views
-
- 17 replies
- 5k views
-
- 19 replies
- 2.4k views
-
- 12 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 473 replies
- 123.7k views
-
- 55 replies
- 9.4k views
-
- 2 replies
- 453 views
-
- 0 replies
- 164 views
-
- 19 replies
- 849 views
-
- 10 replies
- 967 views
-
- 0 replies
- 291 views
-
- 23 replies
- 4.4k views
-
- 216 replies
- 23.5k views
-
- 8 replies
- 1.4k views
-
- 36 replies
- 4.2k views
-
- 66 replies
- 24.5k views
-
- 5 replies
- 758 views
-
- 58 replies
- 7.5k views
-
- 4 replies
- 696 views
-
- 23 replies
- 3.2k views
-
Popular Contributors
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics16.7k
-
Total Posts338k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
Yes @Emanuel, but look at how you're talking about them... these words from you explain it well: they actually shine for what they are I usually divide between usable and unusable only for internal consumption aka no professional use at all these toys must be seen as complementary tools They don't replace anything etc. But let's look at these comments more deeply. Theme 1: They're toys If they had a serious codec then would they still be toys? I mean, in good light a small sensor camera is more than capable of creating professional images - lots of ENG cameras had VERY small sensors! Even if they released a PRO version with a CFExpress or SD UHS-III slot and could record 8K at 1,000Mbps... what would be left that would make it a toy and not a professional tool? Theme 2: They are just to add to the existing tools Let's imagine you're recording out in the real world and don't know where to point the camera because you don't know what will happen - what is the alternative to one of these? Option 1: Insta360 Pro 2 You can't realistically ask someone to carry a 1.5kg / 3.3lbs camera on a stick while they're actually doing things. So that's out. Option 2: Ask the person to carry a "normal" camera You can't realistically ask someone to be a cinematographer and aim a camera at what they're doing while they're actually doing something - plus you can't record the world and also their reaction to it at the same time. So that's out. Option 3: Use multiple camera-operators to walk in-front of the person This completely ruins any spontaneity of someone actually doing something out in the world, your fly-on-the-wall reality content just turned into a film set. So that's out. What else????? There aren't any other options to record content in the way that you can when you get someone to carry a 360 camera in one hand or strap it to their backpack or to their bike/scooter/etc and then just tell them to ignore it. By getting someone to hold the camera on a stick about eye level and a few feet in front of them, we can capture the situation the person is in, and also the person reacting to that situation, simultaneously. It's the perfect way to have a "fly-on-the-wall" perspective, only it's floating in-between the subject and the world, all in the form of a sausage on a stick which few people pay much attention to. If we had an invisible camera that could fly it wouldn't do a much better job than these things do. I genuinely believe these things are just a better codec away from being the main camera to record in some situations. They are an entirely new product category, and yet they're turned into toys because of a stupid design decision that limits any decent use in order to make them more usable for morons. -
PS yet to you @kye... these toys must be seen as complementary tools, no other because it is what they are. Specialty capture devices. They don't replace anything but they can help when others don't or cannot. The point is to know if they are ready to couple with or not yet. I think they can do the trick already even though when they don't excel. Fair is fair : ) I haven't found replace for my One X2 either. Just 100% of the cases, no footage to use. I think this time the thing has reached a different level, not the optimal nor the sweet spot but enough to get the job done when needed under strict control, obviously :- ) -
I don't doubt, mate, no worries @kye I understand you and even fully concur your concern for sure, well seen and said : ) However, what puzzles me is what I've seen it from these devices. There are surely limitations but looks like they actually shine for what they are. I usually divide between usable and unusable. This time 8K and 4K 100fps acquisition seem to me fairly usable under certain circumstances not for delivery at same resolution, of course ; ) When before only for internal consumption aka no professional use at all, no resolution is able to save the grace, as matter of fact :- )
-
-
I actually prefer HLG to a standard LOG profile. The reason is that HLG has rec709 levels of saturation and the main part of the image (everything below about 50%) and so when turning the image back into a 709 image from HLG you're not stretching out tiny differences in a flat LOG profile. The disadvantage of HLG in this sense would be the clipping of colours, but HLG retains the full DR of the camera so it will only clip on very very saturated colours and those will mostly be clipped due to being too hot (e.g. tail-lights) which would be clipped either way.
-
