Eric Calabros

OIS or IBIS have almost no problem dealing with severe vibrations. Their killer is dust. Even if your lens is "weather sealed", its not immune to dust. Stabilizer being on lens or sensor, use very tiny metal balls lubricated by a special oil, to move smoothly. If that oil contaminated by environment particles, it loses its required viscosity, and the result is jumpy moves. 

3 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

it would take 8k or more for good 3D and here they are with a new camera still doing 6k

Chip shortages and thin profit margin. Look at the Nikon announcement today. Everybody is trying to use the parts they already have in inventory or still available to order. This one has 1 inch sensor and two of them, at just $700! Japanese gave up single 1 inch P&S at $1000. I don't want to be business manager of this company.

Z9 heatsink.

2 hours ago, Davide DB said:

the thread has derailed into a wall-to-wall nonsense.

It actually turned to a good discussion: what exactly defines a cine camera?

On 6/6/2022 at 5:16 PM, Andrew Reid said:

From my own eyes I know for a fact that sensors have a different look to colour in RAW and grade differently, not all RAW files have the same tonality or colour depth.

Tough to even match a CCD to CMOS let alone an Alexa and a RAW file from an A7S II.

I strongly recommend reading this article. I recommend everything Jack writes on his weblog. Its a treasure. 

https://www.strollswithmydog.com/on-white-balance/

9 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

A better analogy would be 50hz vs 60hz electricity as that is a fundamental difference in the supply standard.

Thus if you were patenting an electric vehicle you might want to mention some fundamental numbers.

50hz vs 60hz defines the ecosystem that the device is compatible with. "24fps or more", is intentionally mentioned there to prevent still camera makers, who were already using raw compression for still images, to make Cine cameras that shoot raw internally. If a judge doesn't understand this doesn't mean its not clear.

12 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Yeah sensors have their own look in the RAW data.

The filter stack has an effect.

Sorry, the first line is technically incorrect. You don't have sensor look. You have CFA color response, which isn't perfect, because we don't have perfect chemicals to use in color filter to get perfect response. There are some differences in this not-being-perfect response between different sensors, but its way smaller than you think.

 So when we use matrix transform (to bring raw data to our desired color space) we end up with errors. Then we use LUTs to correct those errors as much as possible, with bias to "true to life" rendering, OR "pleasing look" rendering. You simply choose how the color be wrong!

You don't find a sensor with better look. You find sensors that are better profiled to be aligned with your personal bias.

Bottom line is you can make ANY raw image to look like Arri, if you think Arri looks good. The reason behind that sometimes its difficult and time consuming is not that there are some shortcomings in the sensor itself. Reason is the company is not open to share the data about their sensor CFA response and white balance pre scaling, AND they don't bother to give you proper LUTs to ease the process. 

15 minutes ago, deezid said:

when it comes to color rendering

Don't want to be "akshually" guy but.. If its RAW, it has no color rendering. Color is what RAW developer software provides. Image sensor doesn't output a "look".

3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

They patented the whole thing. The entire video camera system with RAW recording

Which means they're guarding the act of compression itself. Frame rates and level of compression are also stupid. Its like to patent a CPU with 8 cores to prevent anyone else making any CPU with more than 7 cores. Nobody should be allowed to patent the scale of something. 

They should have patented the algorithm of compression, not the compression itself, because 1- compressing raw data is obvious 2- done before on still raw up to 5-6 fps in DSLRs, like Nikon D2x.

2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

and many bad patents are upheld and left standing when they shouldn't be. 

Because most of the judges don't understand the technology behind these things. 

50 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

It was an APS-C design, for APS-C cameras, but they tried to cram a FF sensor into that APS-C lens mount! They 
"did" it, but left very little "wriggle room" for the IBIS to operate in. 

Sony IBIS problem is not like it can't move a lot. The problem is overcorrection. All IBIS systems should be content aware. They should know whats going on in the scene. Respond to vibration isn't enough. 

What's up with this dance trend in promotional videos? It should give me information, not entertainment. I can evaluate the noise and DR in a single frame from a simple shot.. just show me a dark room with a bright window. 

3 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

I'm not doubting the work of Graeme's work. Patent the hell out of it. But they can't claim they have exclusive rights to "'visually lossless' compressed data derived from raw, stored in camera memory at greater than 23 fps."

Basically they patented a condition 🙂

31 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

They were first to do it though weren't they, whilst the big corporations snoozed!

Big corporations couldn't even imagine someone would patent the idea of saving RAW file.

On 5/26/2022 at 2:06 AM, Caleb Genheimer said:

You have no physics evidence to refute ARRI’s claim.

Sony A1 read out noise at ISO 640 (the lowest, or true base) is only 0.927e which is insanely low. Now assume that we combine the ISO 100 image with max saturation capacity, and ISO 640 image with lowest noise. We have 20log(39579/0.927) and thats 15.4 stop. And that would be at 1:1 signal ratio, which is only useable after temporal noise reduction in post. 

Its like Russian invasion of Ukraine in fear of NATO Expansion (RAW recording for all). Its an unwinnable war for Ukraine, but I hope they win.

3 hours ago, Caleb Genheimer said:

It doesn’t *really* matter what stop number ARRI say the DR of their new sensor is, they’re very consistent and technical with their numbers. They rate it having two stops more than their previous sensor, so however you’d rate the original sensor, this one will have two stops on it.

Seems you think reputation trumps physics. 

13 minutes ago, MurtlandPhoto said:

This is statement is true of basically every other camera company except ARRI

There is no exception. ARRI didn't reinvent the CMOS sensor, they just achieved lower noise floor with double readout. State of the art CMOS is limited by 15 stop, which 13 is useable. These are so clean that they're only limited by shot noise. In other words, the noise problem is already solved; so to increase DR you need to work on the other side: saturation level. Unfortunately its so hard to increase the saturation capacity that Nikon celebrated when they achieved 1/4 of a stop more capacity and called it ISO 64, which in reality was only ISO 80.

No BSI, no fast read out, no clean 4k60, no CF express slot, and ridiculous EVF for the price.

Fuji gonna be fine.

I don't like to say that 17+ DR is a marketing lie, but even state of the art CMOS sensors can't reach that level. 

4k raw is obviously pixel binned, but pixel binned NRAW seems cleaner than pixel binned ProResRAW. 

14 hours ago, Sharathc47 said:

No it's 6:1 and 12:1 compression for 12bit video

Check newest reference guide. There is a table for all bitrates.

So NRAW compression ratio is 4.5:1 in High quality and 7.5:1 in Norma quality.

30 minutes or 50 minutes of 8k24 with 512GB card.

6 hours ago, gethin said:

just checked out this 8k raw footage: around 0:46 there is some false colour/moire on the balconies, centre of shot. 

I couldn't find it. However its always possible to get moire with 8k resolution. Modern lenses out resolve sensors, even at 100 megapixels. If you want zero occurrence of moire you have to stay in aperture range that diffraction happens, or simply use a softer lens.