Subforums
-
The EOSHD YouTube Channel (23,683 visits to this link)
17,307 topics in this forum
-
- 706 replies
- 320.8k views
-
- 1.2k replies
- 489.6k views
-
- 5.8k replies
- 1.9m views
-
- 9.1k replies
- 2.8m views
-
- 0 replies
- 2k views
-
- 1.8k replies
- 782.3k 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
- 69 replies
- 5.3k views
-
- 473 replies
- 158.6k views
-
- 53 replies
- 5.5k views
-
- 0 replies
- 6 views
-
- 8 replies
- 689 views
-
- 5 replies
- 641 views
-
- 23 replies
- 2k views
-
- 568 replies
- 269k views
-
- 1 reply
- 88 views
-
- 62 replies
- 21.8k views
-
- 16 replies
- 921 views
-
- 25 replies
- 2k views
-
- 64 replies
- 8.3k views
-
- 11 replies
- 652 views
-
- 30 replies
- 2.4k views
-
- 7 replies
- 849 views
-
- 108 replies
- 80.3k views
-
- 12 replies
- 1.4k views
-
- 42 replies
- 11.5k views
-
- 31 replies
- 7.4k views
-
- 4 replies
- 959 views
-
- 129 replies
- 67k views
-
- 83 replies
- 11.6k views
-
- 12 replies
- 1.3k 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
- 8.7k views
-
- 2 replies
- 928 views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.4k views
-
Popular Contributors
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics17.3k
-
Total Posts352.2k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
By Ilkka Nissila · Posted
If you have 20 mm and 60 mm as the equivalent focal lengths that are available, the wider angle makes sense for including oneself in the footage, and showing a bit of environment, which must be a common thing in social media. However, at least I would preferentially shoot with 35 mm or 50 mm a lot of the time. By starting with an 8K sensor, you can get more detailed crops that mimic those lenses at least in angle of view. Of course, you lose light in cropping so the quality won't be the same as using one of the native options, but it is probably less damaged than if you start with a 4K sensor and crop from 20 mm to (say) 50 mm. I'm personally perfectly happy shooting in 4K with a 35 mm full-frame mirrorless camera and doing a bit of cropping doesn't really bother me, but the camera that I use makes the 4K footage by downsampling from 8K resolution, so even in the 4K file (typically for me Prores 422 HQ), there is a better starting point for cropping than if I had shot with a 4K native sensor camera (due to the Bayer sensor not registering all colors for all pixels natively). I think 20 mm would be extremely wide to shoot everything with (that's what the DJI Pocket 4P's magical sensor produces, 20 mm equivalent footage), and I'd want to moderate the angle of view a lot of the time to something in the 35 to 50 mm range. Thus the sensor resolution is likely to play some role in the practical quality that can be obtained. Although I like the idea of a camera that has a gimbal and can be just taken out of the bag and used, and I commend DJI for bringing the long-in-development LOFIC sensor into an actual consumer product, neither of these cameras (luma ultra and Pocket 4P) are really for me as I basically never do videos with myself in the footage, and the 20 mm equivalent angle of view is just not what I want from a video camera. Cropping (to get an acceptable angle of view) from a small-sensor camera is going to make noise more visible and detail less clear. I think use of a gimbal on a heavy full-frame mirrorless camera is painful for the setup that is required. Eventually I think some good compromises will arise, with moderately light total weight, internal (optical) zooms that don't require recalibration after FOV change, better integration of camera controls into the gimbal user interface, and some digital signal processing that is optimized to reduce the gimbal motor noise from on-camera audio tracks (this will require work on the motors themselves and the processing) are likely to make things more practical for me, but for now most of the time my gimbal is just not being used. With regards to the dynamic range, I'm used to slide film from long ago and when using it (for still photography) it was essential to photograph in what we called good light, which meant light that was suitable for the material, with no exposure latitude whatsover, and I still try to choose where I shoot so that the subjects and the scene will look good straight out of the camera where possible. With my camera the top video dynamic range is 12 stops and I've not run into anything that would make that feel inadequate, given the starting point of acceptable conditions for photography to begin with, in fact it feels wildly liberating what kind of post exposure adjustments are possible today. I would argue that if there is a situation which requires higher dynamic range, then alternatives probably result in better quality: use lighting for the main subjects in the foreground. If the scene can't be lit then shoot in a location which gives better results without lighting. Post-processing has its limits and I would argue it is not easy to mimic really good lighting on a scene with high contrast but no light (or too little light) on the subjects in post-processing. However, if you can use and benefit from 17 stops of dynamic range, by all means use it if available. I think my life is easier by carefully choosing where the original material is shot. -
By Ilkka Nissila · Posted
If you can afford the cards and temporary space on an internal drive, you could shoot in R3D NE in camera and then after transferring the files to the computer, convert it to log h.265 and delete the original files. By doing this you can get high-quality h.265 and avoid the long-term accumulation of storage otherwise needed for the raw files, not much different from having a high-quality h.265 codec in the camera, apart from the fact that you would need large memory cards and some space on the computer's internal drives for this step. I'm not trying to make an excuse for Nikon for the h.265 but suggesting a workaround who have this camera for one reason or another, and need a practical workflow. -
The funny thing is that 8-bit cDNG on the FP would actually make the challenge more interesting, not less : ) Sigma really does offer CinemaDNG internally in 8, 10 and 12-bit, so “8-bit RAW” is not an oxymoron here. The FP even uses a different dual-base ISO behaviour for 8/10-bit CinemaDNG than for 12-bit RAW. Which could make a nice test in itself: how much of what we normally attribute to “8-bit limitations” comes from bit depth, and how much comes from the usual baked codec / chroma / processing pipeline? -
Good morning, everyone! I spent two days on nearby Thassos, where I visited the Trypiti Cave for the first time. It’s an amazing natural spot nestled among the rocks, with seawater forming a small, "hidden" beach behind them. Here is the video covering the two-day trip. -
By filmmakereu · Posted
I think the gap isn't another database of specifications. We already have plenty of those, and the old DPReview reviews are still remarkably useful for understanding what a camera was when it launched. What seems to be missing is a "today" layer. How easy is it to live with in 2026? Are batteries and accessories still readily available? How well does the codec fit modern editing workflows? Are there reliability issues that only became apparent over time? What does the current used price actually buy compared to newer alternatives? I'd also like to see a stronger filmmaking angle rather than just image quality. Some older cameras still have a rendering or shooting experience that makes them genuinely enjoyable, even if they're objectively behind in dynamic range or autofocus. Most launch reviews answered, "Is this a good camera today?" The more interesting question now is, "Who is this camera still a great tool for?"
-
