Jump to content

theSUBVERSIVE

Members
  • Content Count

    239
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

theSUBVERSIVE last won the day on September 24 2012

theSUBVERSIVE had the most liked content!

About theSUBVERSIVE

  • Rank
    Active member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. When Sony bought some stock shares from Olympus, didn't they become partners - at some level? With Olympus helping Sony developing lenses or something? Could that have played a role as of why Olympus didn't commit to the L-Alliance? I don't think they intend to be a Micro4/3 exclusive manufacturer - and I don't even know if they could sustain that - but I don't think Sony would be open for Olympus to develop their own E-mount camera, so the L-Alliance would be the better route and much better than developing their own system with a new mount. Sigma is offering mount swap for their FF lenses, which is great for people that are already invested in it, plus, they will sell their lenses with an L-mount. Not only they will benefit from that but consumers will benefit even more. The lack of fully articulated screen and PDAF are big question marks for Panasonic S cameras. The articulated screen might be due to the cables connection and the hinge of the articulated screen, but the lack of PDAF can't even be explained. Regardless of how invested they are in the DFD tech, I'm pretty sure they could manage to use PDAF, in the mean time since Dual Pixel showed up, all other manufacturers caught up to have better AF based on PD, Panasonic is the only odd one in the market. Sure, they can eventually come up with a reliable AF tracking for video with the AI DFD but during the GH5 development announcement, they talked like the AF was just as good as any other but that didn't pan out, so it becomes harder to buy whatever Panasonic is saying about the new AF.
  2. If this is really a thing - which I think a lot of us have wondered before, why not do like Sony A7s and A7R? Low Light and More Pixels - I think a new and more powerful processor is indeed important since Tracking AF performed different when just outputting the signal through HDMI compared to tracking and recording in camera. Which means it was a bit of a bottle neck as it shouldn't have any difference in performance. Canon might have Dual AF but so does Samsung, even Google used in the Pixel 2. I don't know if Google has a patent of their own, but I'm pretty sure Samsung's is not the same as Canon's, so it's possible for other companies to have similar tech, so it wouldn't surprise me - even more if people will HAVE to pay the extra - if either Sony/Panasonic developed something similar or they are indeed paying for it. Low light was one of the topics people said the GH5 couldn't keep up with the competition, but video AF was something that even more people complained about. So I think it would make sense for them to try to step up their game, be if with the combination of PDAF and CDAF or something like Dual Pixel.
  3. A couple of years ago I described what Sony could do to make a real PRO FF mirrorless. An A9 24MP FF E-mount, high frame rate burst with a bigger form factor, no overheating and bigger battery but I thought Sony would put an articulated screen and touch screen as well. That what made sense to go after Canikon and it seems that that's what they did. "One that could have around 24MP with fast readout that could do both 4K in Full Frame and 1:1 pixel 4K in APS-C/Super 35 mode. Not to mention great slow motion and burst frame rate." "The A9 will pack everything Sony can, the A7 family was just a study case and preparation because the plan was to make the A9 go against the big boys, Canon 1DX and Nikon D5 but doing so in a Sony fashion, full of big technological advancements." "I wonder how much will this A9 cost, maybe with the grip it will be at least $5000. Another interesting point is if Sony will pack advanced video feats in this camera." "There are two ways to look at the A9, one is that the A9 is a natural evolution of the A7 series but for me, I think that the A7 cameras existed so the A9 could exist. It’s like they used the A7 to fund the R&D of the A9, but they needed time and enough technological advancement to pull that off after the A-mount experience failed and also to make it worth announcing against Canikon’s big boys. I also think that this is why they haven’t made a bigger form factor for the A7 and I’ve said before, when I say bigger, I’m not saying DSLR-like, simply a bit bigger would do. Enough so overheating is no longer an issue and the camera doesn’t have any form factor compromise, for me, overheating has become a way to separate and justify bigger and more expensive cameras."
  4. There is no option to bake LUT into the footage - for now. But hopefully if enough people ask for it, there will be. I've asked around and this is something some of the Lumix ambassadors were also talking with Panasonic. As far as I know for now, all you can do is to convert a LUT to Varicam .vlt and use it, the function is called V-log L View Assist and it only works in V-log L and although it would be very interesting if Panasonic could open that option for other picture profiles, I doubt they will. But the ability to select, preview and bake a LUT in-camera would be very useful and welcomed.
  5. I asked Sean Robinson about it but his reply was a bunch of marketing mumble jumble that didn't even make sense, it seems they simply wanted the 4K, 6K and 8K progression, even though nobody actually cares about that. I even asked why don't they release a 5K video then instead of just open gate hi-res anamorphic or since the 6K Photo is a 10-bit 420, will the hi-res anamorphic be 10-bit 422. Or as H.264 doesn't support HLG HDR, so does it mean that when Panasonic releases the HLG firmware there will be H.265 4K 10-bit 422 files as well? But he didn't answer any of that. It seems that the EVF is basically the same as the Leica Q. The only other manufacturer that uses a 3.2" 1620k LCD screen is Canon, so it may be the same, who knows?
  6. Is 10-bit a typo? I remember the FS5 having macroblocking issues when recording 4K internally but the FS5 doesn't record 4K 10-bit 422, it's XAVC-L 8-bit 420.
  7. Yeah, these were almost exactly my comments there. C5D does far too often technical mistakes like this, it happens in basically every article. They look more knowledgeable than they actually are and I've seen this in so many articles, enough so I follow the news, but take any technical report with a grain of salt. They are confusing compression issues with color depth issues, two very distinctive things, propagating terrible misinformation for those that know even less than they do. To clear this up, they should have done an external recording to rule out compression and codec issues before jumping into 10-bit is no good. Plus, I'm not really into this level of pixel peeping anyway. They even missed some other observations about the other cameras artifacts or even other GH5's advantages too. In the end, they are spreading a lot of misinformation which will only confuse even more people that already don't eff understand what color depth and chroma subsampling is, this is already a complicated topic to discuss out there because there are already a lot of poorly done tests about this matter and this isn't doing it any favor at all.
  8. Sure, they could offer that but I doubt. I mean, marketing 1080p RAW is not as appealing as anything 4K, they probably don't think it's worth it. But it didn't need to be now, if BlackMagic is using SD cards to record 4K ProRes HQ with their 4K recorder, that's more than what is needed for their 1080p CinemaDNG RAW, so this argument could have been made quite earlier.
  9. From my understanding Leica wanted video shooters to use Super 35 lenses for the Leica SL, right? I'm not sure how many would do it but a Leica SL with an external recorder outputting 10-bit 422 should be interesting, how is the rolling shutter? The new M10 has a better sensor with less overall noise, which makes me wonder who made the sensor. The Leica Q and SL sensors are made by TowerJazz (by Panasonic), is this from somebody else? This also makes me think about the next Leica of this kind, Panasonic put a lot of good things in the SL, external 10-bit 422, L-Log, 120fps, etc. quite similar to the GH4, will the next Leica have internal 10-bit 422 and 4K60p like the GH5? I wonder if more people will think about Leica for video if they deliver that. That would be interesting, the GH4 has an extra crop and so does the SL, would the next one be a full sensor readout withuot crop like the GH5 as well? I would be like a FF GH5 with Leica colour science - and price! hehe...
  10. Oh, there is another interesting bit regarding the GH5 and H.265. The GH5 will support the HLG, which is a HDR standard, right? It has to be 10-bit 422 and that's something people already know and that's why the GH5 will support it but so far, H.264 doesn't support HLG and unless they add it or the GH5 starts to use VP9, the only other codec to support HLG is H.265. If so, this hints that either way, at least the HLG content will have to be output through HEVC.
  11. I don't quite understand why did you conclude that I'm oh so confident it's going to be this or that. I'm not betting, I'm just speculating. If AVC Ultra also has 400Mbps and HEVC would take less than half of that bitrate, to conclude it has more chances of being based on AVC Ultra is not a matter of confidence, just logic. It might be HEVC, but it doesn't look like that since both are 400Mbps. Also you can't base on AVC Ultra to make a HEVC codec, to begin with it would be AVC, since that means H.264 and how H.265 works is very different, it can't be based on a different codec, it would simply be a new codec. Maybe HEVC Ultra? hahahaha... That's BS already. The GH5 is in development for how long? Didn't they know that it would need V60 cards for 400Mbps codec? Sure they did. I'll quote what I already wrote. "Anyway, Black Magic Design is already using some UHS-II cards for their 4K recorder up to around 120MB/s, so indeed there are already cards that could sustain 400Mbps. Panasonic saying it's because there is no V60 cards is just BS, the truth is that THEY don't have the codec ready yet. And as I said, for some reason manufacturers haven't done the tests or I don't know why they don't label the V60 and V90 capable cards with it." If Panasonic had the codec ready and they needed manufacturers to put V60 label on cards, it would be a simply matter of letting manufacturers know and since they already have cards that can sustain more tha V90 for minimum sequential writing speed, it would be just a mater of testing it and putting the label on it. It would certainly take less than 6-months to do so. So obviously it's not the cards that are not ready, but that's what the marketing is going to say, of course. But I see no problem in delivering it via FW, it's better than having to wait longer for the camera.
  12. No, I didn't forget and at the same time it's not like Panasonic rely on that for their income, even if their were late to fast SD Cards that's still not something that would take so long to solve or anything that would prevent them from adopting the 400Mbps codec, most certainly it's because they haven't finalized the codec yet. More importantly, it was said in a couple of GH5 interviews that Panasonic has announced V60 and V90 cards at CES 2017 already.
  13. I'm not saying that, really. I said that using the word "efficiency" in that example is like comparing two different things. If I was to use the word efficiency I would compare one codec to another or maybe All-I to All-I, IPB to IPB, because that's the adjective you use to measure quality, otherwise I would just talk about compression rate. Saying efficiency like you did, it does sound like you are saying All-I is bad compared to IPB when they simply have different applications and as far as I understood, you simply wanted to say that All-I has a lower compression rate than IPB and not really saying one is better or worse than the other. But when you used the word "inefficient" that's what it sounded like. Anyway, this is irrelevant, I was just explaining why people thought you were complaining about All-I.
  14. @joema Yeah, after asking it I went and read a bit more about it. My doubt came up to be because Andrew had said that HEVC was by its nature Long GOP but I've read a comment by Vitaliy Kiselev saying that that's not correct and that not only it has All-I but it's significantly more efficient as an Intra codec than AVC was. So I take his word in that. I understand that it's not so simple, but I hope that Panasonic brings HEVC for other modes if they can, DJI already adopted it and they are offering all sorts of choices, from RAW, ProRes to H.264 and H.265, Panasonic could at least offer AVC and HEVC. @marcuswolschon the word efficient was not used in the best way and that's why people looked at it as a complain. It's hard to use the word efficient comparing apples and oranges, maybe you should had talked about compression rate instead of efficiency. Anyway, Black Magic Design is already using some UHS-II cards for their 4K recorder up to around 120MB/s, so indeed there are already cards that could sustain 400Mbps. Panasonic saying it's because there is no V60 cards is just BS, the truth is that THEY don't have the codec ready yet. And as I said, for some reason manufacturers haven't done the tests or I don't know why they don't label the V60 and V90 capable cards with it. Just like HEVC, All-I is a great option to have and for those that can and will take advantage of it, having options is always good. The lack of support for All-I 10-bit 422 hardware acceleration is interesting and that explains why some people have complained that they didn't see any gain by using All-I AVC footage in terms of being less tasking. For most people, they will probably keep using IPB. An All-I HEVC would be very interesting too.
  15. Interesting, I've been looking for someone with enough knowledge of HEVC to ask a few questions, so if you have the time, I would appreciate. But before that, from what I've read, VP9 wasn't really as efficient as HEVC, being closer to AVC than HEVC but I don't know how much it has improved since then. Does HEVC have All-I encoding or just IPB? If it has All-I, how much less tasking would it be compared to the usual IPB? Is there advantages of having an All-I H.265 encoding? I fully understand that NLEs and computers haven't caught up with HEVC yet but since Panasonic GH5 is already capable of encoding it, I don't see why it shouldn't have H.265 for 4K as well, even if RIGHT NOW most people wouldn't be able to take fully advantage of that. Well, simply because some people would and as time passes, more and more people would, H.265 is after all the codec of the future and having a camera like a GH5, that is already making some splashes, using HEVC, that by itself would help the industry move forward faster since it would help creating a demand for that. Otherwise we will be stuck and simply waiting for Manufacturers and Software to start supporting whenever the feel like and since there is not much demand, why would that be a priority for them? So even if I can't personally take full advantage of HEVC now I would like Panasonic to think forward and implement it, if Photo 6K already uses it and if Anamorphic Hi-Res will also use it, I can't see why they couldn't be able to implement it for 4K or even create a 5K video mode. 6:9 5K is 4800px and DCI would be 5120px - which is why this is much more like Photo 5K than Photo 6K, what an unnecessary marketing BS. Anyway, I'm all for pushing technology forward. C'mon Panasonic, just give people the option to record in H.265 10-bit 422 - since Photo 6K seems to be 10-bit 420 for now.
×
×
  • Create New...