Subforums
-
The EOSHD YouTube Channel (23,665 visits to this link)
17,305 topics in this forum
-
- 706 replies
- 320.4k views
-
- 1.2k replies
- 489k views
-
- 5.8k replies
- 1.9m views
-
- 9.1k replies
- 2.8m views
-
- 0 replies
- 2k views
-
- 1.8k replies
- 781.8k 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 4
- 60 replies
- 4.9k views
-
- 15 replies
- 729 views
-
- 25 replies
- 1.9k views
-
- 64 replies
- 8.1k views
-
- 11 replies
- 575 views
-
- 22 replies
- 1.9k views
-
- 50 replies
- 5.4k views
-
- 567 replies
- 268.8k views
-
- 5 replies
- 602 views
-
- 30 replies
- 2.3k views
-
- 472 replies
- 158.4k views
-
- 4 replies
- 608 views
-
- 7 replies
- 821 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
- 931 views
-
- 129 replies
- 66.9k views
-
- 83 replies
- 11.5k 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
- 905 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
-
Fair enough, and I think “it really comes down to your perspective” is already much closer to what I have been saying from the beginning : ) I would only question “completely irrelevant”, 'cause and when you immediately acknowledge the principal practical justification for an 8K sensor: Cropping twice into a 4K image ; ) That is precisely where the additional detail becomes visible in the comparisons posted above, particularly with the tele shots and whenever the image is cropped and magnified. 8K is also useful for extracting high-resolution frame grabs : P So yes, I concur that the Pocket’s additional latitude may be much more valuable in a wide, uncontrolled, high-contrast exterior scene. The Pocket 4 Pro remains high on my wish list, of course : ) But in a shot requiring additional reach, reframing or magnification or yet, genuine DSMC use ; ) the Luna’s resolution may be the advantage that actually matters too : ) Which brings us back to perspective, purpose and the particular shot, rather than to any single universal verdict on the two cameras. Let alone the POV Head Tracker, detachable screen, internal 32-bit float stereo audio (all game-changers) and the rest of the Luna’s modular shooting concept ; ) E. :- ) -
Interesting idea that the lens might be contributing to this impression, and I would tend to agree with you. In my testing I routinely found that if you change almost any variable then the aesthetic impressions of almost all the image characteristics are changed. This is one of the reasons I am so critical when people compare cameras side-by-side but don't match WB and/or don't use the same LUTs or colour pipeline, they're effectively saying "I've compared these cameras in identical conditions except for the colour which is different in every way and impacts your perception of basically every aspect of the image". My testing of YouTube suggests that for 4K uploads Prores HQ isn't much better than H264 at around 100Mbps, and maybe also 50Mbps, but it's likely to be pretty subject specific (like if you have lots of demanding shots like big fountains or rain or snow or waves moving across water etc - things with huge amounts of motion). I'd suggest experimenting, and hopefully that gives a place to start. Impacts of these sensors to the market value of videography is obviously a hugely complex topic, but in general terms if this reduces the barrier to entry then more people will come into the market and more supply without more demand means the price goes down. I'm not sure that the extra DR of these sensors really has that much impact on this though. I watched Peaky Blinders The Immortal Man on Netflix the other day and there's a wide shot taken from a long way away with a large fire on top of a hill and no other lighting in the rest of the scene, taken at the dim end of blue hour, and the fire is clipped to absolute hell, basically being just a solid yellow blob. Whatever cameras they used were fine for the rest of the film but clipped on this. The market for DR is there, but the better the tech gets the thinner the tail is. Still, if every camera had Alexa 35 level DR, that would be a nice bump in quality for all footage for sure. Temporal NR wouldn't be shown by that graph, true. I agree that the word "RAW" has less and less meaning every day of late as well! The relationship between ISO and DR is an interesting one too. I used to think that the DR during the day was higher than at night, especially if there was direct sun, but I've almost reversed my position on that since I've been shooting more at night in recent years. It might be that during the day people expect that the light and shadow sides can't both be seen at once whereas at night lighting from artificial lighting is more even, or it might be that the sun doesn't tend to be in the frame when at night the lights are almost always in the shot unless you're using quite a long lens and the background is controlled. If you think about S16 film footage the daytime footage doesn't normally look as harsh as the shots taken at night in cities where every light in the frame is absolutely blown to hell. I haven't read up about LOFIC sensors, but my impression was that they have an additional capacitor that catches the 'overflow' from the main read-out, which should increase the DR across all modes of the sensor. This assumption that it applies all the time and without any trade-offs may well not be true of course, but it sure seems to work nicely at base-ISO where they tested it! -
You make excellent points, but it really comes down to your perspective. The detail from the 8K will be completely irrelevant, except in cinemas, where exactly zero people will ever watch this footage. The extra DR will absolutely be visible, even on smartphones, even with a film emulation applied, and especially because these cameras are designed for wide FOV shooting outdoors where there is a high probability of having huge DR (and even the sun) in the frame. We can look at images in controlled lighting, this is true. However under such conditions the vast majority of cameras from the last decade will look just fine. In fact, if the older cameras have the same bit-depth in their codecs but less DR then they might look BETTER than the modern cameras as the bits will be less stretched! So if we're going to compare modern cameras in very controlled conditions then the comparisons should include the vast hundreds of models released in the last decade or so, but if you do mention them then people go berserk because these older cameras fall short in other areas, and you can make a good argument that the controlled tests are nice but not entirely sufficient for evaluation. In which case, the stunning differences in DR between these cameras is now back in the consideration and the DJI is miles ahead of the Luna. To summarise that a bit, if you're taking everything into consideration then the DR really matters and if you're not then why aren't you comparing dozens of older cameras, and if you desperately want a tiny gimbal but only shoot in controlled conditions then isn't that a niche application so narrow that it really can't be justified to evaluate the cameras overall? In terms of me reminding people that lower DR 1080p cameras are fine for many practical tasks, this is true, but modern camera releases have basically nothing to do with practical tasks at all. There is no justification for 8K codecs. Period. The justification for 8K sensors that let you crop 2x for a 4K image is borderline but fine. Then there's 17K - seriously... Most camera discussions departed reality long ago and the discussions about this or that camera have the same rigour as discussing which super-hero can win against which other super-hero.
-
They only rely on IMATEST and it doesn't reveal everything. Especially these days that temporal NR algorithms are doing magic work. The RAW files of these devices are nothing like conventional RAW still images from a mirrorless camera, let alone their 10bit h.265 video. But even some still cameras turn on the NR on RAW from a certain ISO and above. This is S1II for example. The highest no-NR-applied ISO is ISO 5000 -
Found you another camera to play with.. Godox C100: accidentally the best new toy camera 😁
-
