Subforums
-
The EOSHD YouTube Channel (23,659 visits to this link)
17,305 topics in this forum
-
- 706 replies
- 320.3k views
-
- 1.2k replies
- 488.8k views
-
- 5.8k replies
- 1.9m views
-
- 9.1k replies
- 2.8m views
-
- 0 replies
- 2k views
-
- 1.8k replies
- 781.7k views
-
- 25 replies
- 1.9k views
-
- 13 replies
- 633 views
-
- 64 replies
- 8.1k views
-
- 11 replies
- 534 views
-
Internal 32-bit float stereo paired with lossless 120mm reach from a 20mm lens — all inside a genuinely pocket-sized 10-bit 1-inch sensor gimbal camera? 1 2 3
- 58 replies
- 4.8k views
-
- 22 replies
- 1.9k views
-
- 50 replies
- 5.4k views
-
- 567 replies
- 268.7k views
-
- 5 replies
- 586 views
-
- 30 replies
- 2.2k views
-
- 472 replies
- 158.3k views
-
- 4 replies
- 593 views
-
- 7 replies
- 809 views
-
- 108 replies
- 80.2k views
-
- 12 replies
- 1.4k views
-
- 42 replies
- 11.4k views
-
- 31 replies
- 7.3k views
-
- 61 replies
- 21.7k views
-
- 4 replies
- 918 views
-
- 129 replies
- 66.8k views
-
- 83 replies
- 11.4k views
-
- 12 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 6 replies
- 3.8k views
-
- 19 replies
- 13.7k views
-
- 24 replies
- 2.6k views
-
- 9 replies
- 1.9k views
-
- 11 replies
- 2.1k views
-
- 1 reply
- 1.2k views
-
- 14 replies
- 9.5k views
-
- 14 replies
- 8.6k views
-
- 2 replies
- 895 views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 11 replies
- 2.9k views
-
- 20 replies
- 2.7k views
-
Popular Contributors
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics17.3k
-
Total Posts352.1k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
Found you another camera to play with.. Godox C100: accidentally the best new toy camera 😁 -
By Ilkka Nissila · Posted
Maybe. It could also be how the lens renders people, that gives me the sense of artificiality. I do see a significant image (and sound) quality reduction when uploading my own video to youtube at the settings and video format recommended by youtube. I've been trying to figure out how to minimize this issue, and one way is to use the highest-quality format as an intermediate for uploading (QuickTime with Prores HQ). I've not gotten to test this enough to come to a conclusion. I think to evaluate noise reduction and other algorithmic processing done by the camera, one would need to look at subject detail also, and how faithful the details and color in the image are to the subject. This is affected by the lens in addition to digital image processing and compression, but when evaluating a fixed (non-removable) lens camera, it is fair since the user can do nothing to change the optics. Anyway, if this sensor and optics available for 1" sensors satisfy the video community then a lot of money can be saved by not having to invest in larger sensor cameras. It also means making videos of satisfactory quality (or quality that is perceived as very good by the public) will become much more accessible to the general public and thus worth less in the job market, as has become the case for still photography. However, I'm not really convinced just yet. -
The one thing I have not tried is the e stab, but straight out of the box with zero set up other than a quick balance, on the RS4 mini with the optional tracking module, it worked superbly. Not even close to anything like overheating, but then so far, I have only really been shooting stills with it. Start up time must be fine as I have not noticed anything other than it takes a second or so for the zoom to find it’s last setting, either; 28, 50 or 75mm as I have it set. Battery life excellent. I just came back from a week long trip to Scotland and shot well over 1000 frames and battery still showing 2 bars. -
I treat the LX as camera for HD delivery. From my experience, it's the best ratio between size, quality, ergonomy and used market prize for good quality HD. GM1 with a 14mm is thicker, more expensive and handheld video turns out jittery very easily due to its tiny body not being equipped with a stab. I have tested the video side with my slightly taller GM5 and it's not fun to use for video. The stabilized 12 to 32 zoom makes it thicker than I like to for considering it over a GX85. The LX15 has lens stab, which works in 4K as well for holding steady, panning and tilting. HD on it is just too brittle for my taste so I see it as a 4K4HD cam. My two cents. Nice talking to you again, kye.:) @kye -
No, @kye I do not think they are lying. Where exactly did I write such a thing?! : ) The reference to Andrew’s forum rules was precisely what I called it: a slightly amusing, good-natured bit of irony meant entirely in a friendly spirit! Nothing more than that : ) BTW, one small correction: the result is 16 stops at SNR=2 and 17.2 at SNR=1, not the other way around. The Luna’s supposed 13-stop result is not really a valid 13-stop measurement either. CineD explicitly says that the aggressive NR prevented IMATEST from distinguishing the different patches correctly, thereby invalidating the result. They will not even include those figures in their database. So yes, their test demonstrates very clearly that the current I-Log implementation is seriously problematic. No disagreement there. But charts and real-world footage are two very different things. A chart isolates one particular variable under one very particular set of conditions. It does not shoot a street, a face, movement, changing available light, colour, texture, skin, foliage, fine detail or an actual scene. This is precisely why the comparative footage posted above matters. Objective measurements are useful, of course. But only for as long as they help us evaluate an image rather than begin evaluating it on our behalf. There are limits to everything, including measurable advantages and human perception. Someone worth $1.6 billion is sixteen times richer than someone worth $100 million. A huge objective difference, no doubt. Yet if both go out to buy a pizza, chances are they will end up buying exactly the same pizza ; ) The extra wealth only begins to matter when what they want to do actually requires it. What about someone worth $160 million vs $10 million...? The same : P And so on ; ) Likewise, an 8K image contains roughly sixteen times as many pixels as a 2K image. Another enormous and objectively measurable difference. Yet once both are projected onto a cinema screen and viewed from a normal seating distance, many people may struggle to tell them apart at all. The additional resolution only becomes meaningful when the screen size, viewing distance and image content actually allow us to see it. And @kye this is especially worth remembering in your case! LOL ; ) Considering how often you have quite rightly defended 1080p as being more than sufficient in the real world : ) Which is precisely why you know that a measurable advantage does not automatically become a meaningful real-world one. Probably better than most camera lovers : ) More is more. It is not automatically more relevant forever. Four additional stops can obviously be extremely valuable when a particular scene actually requires them. I have never denied that (take a look up there! ; ) But a four-stop advantage on a latitude chart does not mean that the resulting image will look four stops better, or even necessarily better at all, in every real-world shot. And this particular latitude comparison was not even entirely like-for-like. The Luna was tested in 8K25 I-Log at around 120 Mbps, while the Pocket’s headline result came from 4K25 D-Log2. CineD did see the same aggressive NR in the Luna’s 4K wide modes, correct, but they did not repeat the complete latitude test in 4K. Nor did they test the standard profiles, which they themselves suggest may currently be the better choice. It is also worth remembering that D-Log2 is only available on the Pocket’s 20mm wide camera. The 60mm module falls back to regular D-Log, where CineD measured 11.6 stops at SNR=2 and 8 stops of exposure latitude. By comparison, the Luna’s tele camera in its valid 8K25 I-Log mode measured 9.7 stops at SNR=2 and 5 stops of exposure latitude. So the gap there is about two stops in measured dynamic range and three stops in latitude. Still a clear win for DJI, certainly, but rather less apocalyptic than the headline comparison between the two wide cameras ; ) The digitally extended 120mm view naturally derives from that same 60mm camera too, so the Pocket’s spectacular D-Log2 figures cannot be extrapolated across its complete 20mm to 120mm shooting range. So the honest conclusion is still that DJI’s 20mm D-Log2 implementation completely and utterly defeats Luna’s current I-Log implementation in this particular lab test. That is not the same as saying that one complete camera system completely and utterly defeats the other. Sometimes all the technical blah blah blah is extremely useful. Other times it is worth close to zero and can even contaminate the evaluation, especially once people have already been told which image is supposed to win before they look at the actual footage. At that point, the chart is no longer informing the eye. It is replacing it ; ) Take another look at the real-world comparisons above. The difference is certainly not “complete and utter” there. In fact, the Luna’s 8K image often appears to resolve visibly more fine detail than the Pocket’s 4K, particularly in the comparisons of tele shots or whenever the image is cropped and magnified. That may not be attributable to pixel count alone, since lens performance, sharpening, noise reduction and the complete processing pipeline all play their part. Even so, whatever the precise combination behind it, the visible result is there, and in some of those shots the result may even go the other way, depending on what each of us values in an image. In these comparisons, the Luna’s additional resolution is not merely a spec on paper. So I think we are not very far apart on the measurements themselves. We simply disagree about the amount of territory those measurements allow “completely and utterly” to occupy ; ) E. :- )
-
