Subforums
-
The EOSHD YouTube Channel (23,446 visits to this link)
17,298 topics in this forum
-
- 1.2k replies
- 473.5k views
-
- 5.8k replies
- 1.9m views
-
- 9.1k replies
- 2.7m views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.7k views
-
- 700 replies
- 311.9k views
-
- 1.8k replies
- 767.1k views
-
- 6 replies
- 157 views
-
- 100 replies
- 77.4k views
-
- 60 replies
- 5.7k views
-
- 20 replies
- 685 views
-
- 12 replies
- 415 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
- 41 replies
- 2.3k views
-
- 6 replies
- 3.2k views
-
- 19 replies
- 12.8k views
-
- 563 replies
- 265.4k views
-
- 24 replies
- 1.6k views
-
- 9 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 11 replies
- 1.6k views
-
- 1 reply
- 486 views
-
- 14 replies
- 8.8k views
-
- 49 replies
- 3.7k views
-
- 14 replies
- 7.4k views
-
- 2 replies
- 397 views
-
- 0 replies
- 399 views
-
- 11 replies
- 2.1k views
-
- 20 replies
- 1.8k views
-
- 2 replies
- 2.6k views
-
- 82 replies
- 9.2k views
-
- 127 replies
- 62.7k views
-
- 121 replies
- 66.4k views
-
- 0 replies
- 515 views
-
- 0 replies
- 587 views
-
- 0 replies
- 591 views
-
- 5 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 314 replies
- 152k views
-
- 12 replies
- 6.1k views
-
- 30 replies
- 34.3k views
-
- 1 reply
- 551 views
-
- 8 replies
- 13.9k views
-
- 45 replies
- 13.5k views
-
Popular Contributors
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics17.3k
-
Total Posts352k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
A couple of my cousins did this a couple of decades ago : ) with Kodak disposable 35mm film cameras. No photographer, no wedding videographer at all ;- ) -
Love the way you put it! : ) As everyone of your posts BTW < 3 Thanks, always a pleasure reading you : ) Great-juicy-post BTW part II ;- )
-
Really sorry to hear about this, hopefully it's temporary, the body can be more resilient than we think so fingers crossed for you and your family. Everything is a look, and there are no right or wrong answers... I just take exception with the people who run around telling people that the look of cinema is 8K and razor sharp F1.4 prime lenses and "accurate" colour science. Sadly, there are so many of these people sitting around repeating this BS to each other that common sense is hardly able to be heard above the cacophony, and when it is heard the mob chases those voices from the discussion for fear they'll realise they've wasted all their money and spent years sitting around looking like idiots when they could have realised it with a few downloaded reference images and 20 minutes in Resolve! Then the new people come in and see all the "experts" saying these things and because it's overwhelming they have to just swallow a bunch of it because no-one can possibly analyse and check every detail of what they're being told. -
I've heard that this is quite common, although from larger cameras with more camera-like shapes. I wonder how many people have done this...
-
The example pictures online are actually cherry-picked. The images I'm seeing from mine are worse, to the extent I wondered if I got a fake. When I looked closer I just think they chose the nicest ones, which is really just how social media works! You'd be forgiven for thinking it's the lens, but it's really not. Here is a sample image so you can see what I'm seeing. Charmera - 1440x1080 - SOOC - 280K file size: For reference, here's a 1440x1080 280K image from my GX85 with matched FOV: The level of detail is incomparable. What happens if I take the GX85 image and 2x downscale it to 720px then upscale it to 1440 280K again? It's a lot closer, and obviously I haven't sharpened the crap out of it (just doing this quickly in Preview on Mac). But what happens if I take a 3x downsample 480px, then upscale to 1440 280K again? This is definitely lower resolution (the artefacts from the lower res are larger compared to the Charmera). Charmera crop: GX85 -> 3x downsample -> 1440px: GX85 -> 2x downsample -> 1440px: That's much closer. What does all this mean? The limitation is the processor. I believe that they're using a 1440x1080 processor (as they claim) but they're using it in a 720x576 20p readout mode, then sharpening the crap out of it, then upscaling it to 1440x1080, converting it from 20p to 30p, then compressing it to ~15Mbps. The colour isn't that great either, this may be a processing thing too, I'm not sure. The issue is that for them to use the sensor in a 1440 readout mode would require 4x the data rates, which is 4x the processing. If you want the file in real 30p instead of 20p padded out to 30p, that's another 50% again, so 6x the processing. As we know from compact cameras that try and be 4K or 6K and also small, that's overheating territory. It's also "batteries only last how long?!?!?!?!?!" territory. So it would need to be 6x more powerful. I'm not really sure how much extra space those things would require, although GoPro can now do 8K30, which is 16x the data rates of a 2K30 camera, plus its doing all kinds of stabilisation processing etc on top of that, so I'd imagine there is room for these things in such a device if someone was to make one. Someone said that this circuit is likely a very common circuit in all kinds of cameras like dash cams etc, so it's probably only through economies of scale that this can be done. There were quite a number of action cameras and other common cameras that had a real 1080p30 readout, so maybe the pro version could leverage one of those existing architectures of existing chips. That would be pretty awesome!
-
