Subforums
-
The EOSHD YouTube Channel (23,793 visits to this link)
17,309 topics in this forum
-
- 706 replies
- 322.6k views
-
- 1.2k replies
- 493.8k views
-
- 5.8k replies
- 1.9m views
-
- 9.1k replies
- 2.8m views
-
- 0 replies
- 2.1k views
-
- 1.8k replies
- 785.3k views
-
- 17 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 488 replies
- 161.4k views
-
- 37 replies
- 16.6k views
-
- 16 replies
- 1.9k views
-
- 19 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 569 replies
- 270k views
-
- 36 replies
- 3.4k views
-
- 10 replies
- 2.1k views
-
- 86 replies
- 12.2k views
-
- 7 replies
- 958 views
-
- 4 replies
- 304 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
- 73 replies
- 6.2k views
-
- 14 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 3 replies
- 551 views
-
- 1 reply
- 232 views
-
- 53 replies
- 6.1k views
-
- 23 replies
- 2.3k views
-
- 1 reply
- 287 views
-
- 62 replies
- 22.2k views
-
- 25 replies
- 2.3k views
-
- 64 replies
- 8.9k views
-
- 7 replies
- 1k views
-
- 108 replies
- 80.9k views
-
- 12 replies
- 1.6k views
-
- 42 replies
- 11.8k views
-
- 31 replies
- 7.6k views
-
- 4 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 129 replies
- 67.7k views
-
- 12 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 6 replies
- 4k views
-
- 19 replies
- 13.9k views
-
- 24 replies
- 2.9k views
-
- 9 replies
- 2.1k views
-
- 11 replies
- 2.3k views
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics17.3k
-
Total Posts352.2k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
By HockeyFan12 · Posted
32x higher full well capacity or 30db more dynamic range (as cited by the video) should equate (if my math is right) with almost exactly five stops more highlight retention. There might be other trade offs so it's closer to 3 stops in practice, though. In theory, five stops extra would put an FX5 well past an Alexa35 for highlight retention and an iPhone 15 at base ISO (in Apple Log) in close competition. -
In purely lens terms, ie, not considering any camera body or brand, 28-50 is perfect for me indoors so either Sigma’s 28-45 f1.8 or Sony/Canon’s 28-70 f2’s are ‘perfect’ other than size, weight & cost. There is the compromise but for the way I work, it is a case of: A. 2 bodies + 2 primes vs B. 1 body + 1 fast zoom Now of we redo the size, weight and financials, we are in the parity ballpark, so it becomes a case of which option do we prefer, - the single larger heavier unit, or bouncing between two smaller & lighter set ups? I am currently in scenario A but in other seasons have worked with scenario B. Pros & cons to each! Outdoors, my ‘perfect’ focal range is 50-100 with a smaller (but essential need) to go as wide as 28 and as long as 150. A 70-200 doesn’t work for me, even if an f1.0 landed, it would still be a hard nope. Too long, not wide enough. The 28-105 is the closest in L Mount right now if I remove the Samyang 35-150 from the equation. First of all, it’s bit really an f2 other than at the widest end where really it is just an f2 35mm, but a massive and heavy one. I’d rather have the Sigma 28-105 for outdoor work and crop a bit and for indoor, as things stand, the Sigma 28-45 f1.8. This is my most likely scenario continuing with L Mount next year which is also my most likely scenario as things stand for reasons already mentioned, namely, I am already invested in the system and happy with it other than some lens niggles. I am pretty sure if Nikon had got the ZR right for me in just 2 further areas; a fully articulated rear LCD (or even just a tilt) and had a 1/4 size Red codec, it would have been a done deal. I began my career with Nikon and was was with them for 9-10 years and still have a certain, perhaps nostalgic affinity with the brand. Fuji was almost another decade and I could easily jump that way for stills, but not video and I have niggles with their lenses for my stills needs as it would be GFX in that regard and there are no rangy fast zooms so it’s a no go for me. I have zero affinity with Canon though always loved the idea of an R3…but nah, that really would be an entirely new system for me. I’ve been in and out of Sony various times and could go that direction but there is something slightly lacking I cannot quite put my finger on and the best I can come up with is that word ‘affinity’ again. They have ALL of the lenses and I really like the FX style bodies but still… And so L Mount… Leica, for all its criticism and arguably elitism, probably does have a difficult to quantify ultimate quality edge in stills over Lumix, but worth the money? Probably not real world, but does have other merits… SL3-P over S1Rii purely for stills? Hell yes. Entire S1/S5/S9 range over anything else in the same price bracket for video? Hell yes. Leica, Lumix & Sigma for lenses generally, yup they have it. This is just an early morning coffee ramble really. Another 8 months will determine following 5 years for me… -
By Ilkka Nissila · Posted
N-RAW Normal at 25 fps should be below 1000 Mbps. If I calculated correctly, N-RAW High Quality (which is similar to R3D NE) has a compression ratio of approximately 1:4 compared to uncompressed raw video (which is not available on the ZR, for obvious reasons). N-RAW Normal is about 1:8. RED's own codecs (not TicoRAW) in the (not Nikon) RED cameras range from 1:2 to 1:22 depending on settings. I suspect Nikon didn't implement the lower quality TicoRAW in the R3D NE codec (although both Normal and High Quality are available in N-RAW) because of the additional quality loss, and as a matter of protecting the quality expectations associated with the RED brand. They could be simply trying to impress. The ZR body is quite lightweight and slim, and adding more heat sink materials, a fan etc. to enable better quality compressed codecs would have made it larger and heavier, as would adding more hinges and mechanics to make the back LCD screen more flexible in the angles that are offered. I can imagine a bunch of things that could be wanted, such as full size HDMI, SDI, XLR, etc. connectors. THe ZR is probably as small and light as Nikon could make while enabling long recording times and R3D NE recording. Rather than focus on the data rates, I am puzzled at the lack of fully featured software support for the raw video formats. Some formats (R3D NE) reportedly offer a good visual match between what you see on the camera LCD with LUT applied but if you want to apply distortion corrections, a separate transcoding utility need to be applied to convert the footage to Prores. With N-RAW you can get lens profiles applied in Davinci Resolve, but the color doesn't apparently look like how it was on the camera display (?). If you use Premiere, N-RAW is shown with RED's Log profile, which then is different from what you see on camera in the view assist mode. People complain that you cannot cut the R3D NE and remove parts and rewrite the edited footage in the R3D NE format, instead it has to be transcoded into something else before the trimmed footage can be stored (if it is stored in R3D NE format the file does not get smaller). With N-RAW you can cut parts out and store it in N-RAW, so why is this different for R3D NE? Or did I get I could have gotten some parts wrong but to me it seems the software support is as much missing as the camera firmware, and the raw video is sort of an experimental feature at this point. Some comment and seem to think that to get the maximum quality is essential but then complain that the resulting files are too large, even though they are compressed at 25% of original data size, and further compression visibly reduces the image fidelity. I think for video there has to be a realization that you cannot get still-camera like detail and expect small file sizes. A compromise needs to be made. I like using Prores 422 HQ 4K on the Z8 as it allows the distortion profiles to be applied based on lens type and still looks fantastic to my eye, while avoiding the 8K. I can immediately tell the h.265 (which in Nikon's case is always 4:2:0) does not have as rich color on textured, colorful clothes as the 422 codec. Absurd in-camera file sizes, almost as big as 6K RAW? Yes, but it just looks gorgeous and is easy to edit. I delete the original files once I'm done with editing. I can't imagine shooting 8K RAW but with a 6K camera the RAW option is a possibility, once storage costs go down. At the moment the cost of a fast external SSD I got 3 years ago is three times as high as it was in 2023! Hard drives seem less affected and are a possibility for long-term storage, but for editing the SSDs are better. About your lens preferences, the 50-150/2.0 is 4599€ here, quite pricey! Although a set of f/2.0 primes would also be expensive, and together would be heavier, I still would choose the primes for their smaller size in hand, or use the 70-200/2.8 as a classic choice which is available on all major mounts. But I can see that a portrait and event-oriented photographer might prefer the f/2.0 zooms over primes or the f/2.8. I don't think the f/2.0 zooms will become mainstream though, as the f/2.8 are very high quality, lower priced, and have greater range. -
Well, two years after the X4 and one year after the X5, here we are again : ) This time it actually looks like a proper generational jump rather than the usual yearly refresh: X6 brings dual 1/1.1" square sensors (33% larger area than X5), 8K50p (for smoother capture 'cause this is 360º shooting, folks! ; ) 10-bit I-Log and even native in-camera Dolby Vision. There's also a new 2600mAh battery design (finally no longer doubling as part of the actual camera body : ) rated for up to 140 minutes at 8K30. https://www.insta360.com/blog/insta360-x6-launch.html Funny enough, going back to the beginning of this thread, we were already asking for larger sensors, 10-bit LOG and better DR back in 2024... so they have been reading us after all? ; ) For me the really interesting bit is not the "action cam" side of the thing anyway, but how far 360 acquisition has now come as a tool to shoot first and decide framing/camera movement later. 8K was already making that increasingly usable with X4/X5, but larger sensors + 10-bit I-Log is another story for post. 8K50 is not exactly bad news either : P U.S. shooters will have to go down to 6K for getting 60p if needed. The usual guy. Looks like the X-series finally got the upgrade we were waiting for : ) Comparatives against the current 360º contenders or merely dethroned now? And against the other current action cams. Introducing auto editing features by AI, no less ; ) Their new PanoMind model is actually built around understanding the whole 360º scene rather than a conventional flat frame, powering AI Director, Auto Edit 2.0 and Moments Pro. AI Director can even go through your footage inside the X6 while the camera is charging, pick the highlights and have an editable finished cut waiting in the app afterwards (now that's actually useful AI! ; ) Auto Edit 2.0 can take one or several clips and handle the reframing, virtual camera moves, cuts, transitions and music automatically, while Moments Pro takes it another step into the cloud: give it the subject, mood, style and duration you're after and let it build the edit from there. In other words, the whole old 360º idea of "shoot everything now, decide where the camera was pointing later" is increasingly becoming "shoot everything now and perhaps don't even have to decide that yourself later" : P That's precisely where AI actually makes sense here: it addresses one very specific 360º problem: the absurd number of reframing decisions you can end up making in post. Maybe not yet refined but the concept is here : ) Computational cinematography has just landed... Photo Mode X6 vs X5 (who said higher resolution doesn't count? ; ) source (here's a new interesting tool to compare 360 cameras from this same guy, on topic) - EAG -
-
