ND64

Seems outside of Japan, camera makers dont like established sensor size standards. what fab company on earth make 41mm wide CMOS sensor? Its meaninglessly bigger than 36 and pitifully smaller than photographic 54 and miserably far from cinematic 65. 

its not Internet anymore, its Celebritynet. %90 of the content in social media is made by %1 of the users. its tough to keep dedicating your time, money, and energy, and yet stay ignored. the "latest post" of many blogs I used to follow are dated 2014 or 2013! many of them are gone, without saying Bye to their readers (which sometimes make me thinking "maybe he is killed in a car accident and no relative inherited his passwords". lol). but EOSHD is different, or can be. its a brand right now, and Andrew is well known in video community.   

its not Internet anymore, its Celebritynet. %90 of the content in social media is made by %1 of the users. its tough to keep dedicating your time, money, and energy, and yet stay ignored. the "latest post" of many blogs I used to follow are dated 2014 or 2013! many of them are gone, without saying Bye to their readers (which sometimes make me thinking "maybe he is killed in a car accident and no relative inherited his passwords". lol). but EOSHD is different, or can be. its a brand right now, and Andrew is well known in video community.   

This flagship DSLRs are mostly used by PJs and Jpeg is very important for these guys. Now look at Canon white balance in  DPR night mode. D5 nailed it, but Canon seems took Sony color, and made it worse than their own 1DX :-)

This flagship DSLRs are mostly used by PJs and Jpeg is very important for these guys. Now look at Canon white balance in  DPR night mode. D5 nailed it, but Canon seems took Sony color, and made it worse than their own 1DX :-)

the reality is that their D4s customers dont care about the lacking features you asking here, at all
as Thom Hogan said there is only 120,000 D4 out there, and most of them sport shooters who are not allowed to make video in events however. what I guess is that they concluded investing in video department, wont dramatically increase their operating income, so why bother? 

Yes. Again, why do you think they chose lineskipping for the iPhone 5s video? You yourself said the iPhone 5s video was flawless. It is not. If they'd do a proper resampling from 1440p or higher down to 720p without line skipping and proper high quality video encoding, I can assure you - they would not be able to do it in realtime at 120 fps.
(I don't know about the sensor in iPhone, but there are sensors that very well can output higher resolutions at up to 120 fps - but it's still very resource intensive if you want to process the full sensor data and resample it down to 720p or 1080p from a full readout. Line skipping might or might not be necessary from sensor standpoint in an iPhone.)
 
Does 5dmk3 have the power to take 4k-10 bit raw and downsample that to 1080 in realtime 24fps or so? Nope. Outputting RAW is wholly another thing. That means reading data fast and outputting data fast. It's more about I/O than it is about a processor actually doing heavy processing. Downsampling high resolution at high quality at realtime framerates for video is much more difficult processing.
 
So, why doesn't the Nikon V1 output 4k Prores, 4k h.264 or downsample 4k to 1080p to Prores / higher rate H.264? (No, it doesn't have the processing capabilities to do the proper DOWNSAMPLING and ENCODING in realtime).
 
And, the downsampling is key if you really want the best possible resolution and accurate color for 1080p with RGGB grid array sensors. My whole argument in the original post was: from a manufacturer stand point it makes much more sense to go 4k and let the user downsample in post to achieve excellent 1080p, it is much more expensive to do if you want all the processing done in realtime in-camera.

Yes. I think this is where Andrew is going as well with the article:
 
If you want to manufacture a camera with a lot better performance in 1080p, you are already designing a camera that can output a decent 4k video mode, since you want at least four (RGGB) sensor pixels for every 1080p pixel output.
 
If the new Panasonic will output 4k at 10-bit 422, that video downsampled (in-camera perhaps or in post on a computer) will be some awesome 1080p 10-bit 4:4:4 material.
 
So, from a manufacturer's standpoint:
- They can already get sensors that could do 4k at 24fps or more (which can be used for really nice downsampling to 1080p).
- With the right codecs you could encode 4k in fairly nice bitrate even to SDXC if the camera doesn't have CF / SSD.
- Another option would be providing HDMI/SDI output to recorders.
 
What's the remaining component then?
- Processing the data fast enough in realtime with high enough quality. Doing that is a challenge when you want the highest quality of the downsampling. Here in fact, it might be easier to output a faster 8-bit/10-bit 4k and let people downsample it in post, rather than to attempt to do the high quality processing & downsampling to 1080p in-camera.
 
And to think about the processing restraints: What's the major issue on BM pocket camera? ...and how long does the battery last in movie mode on a Panasonic G6/GH3/xxx or a Nikon D800/D5200/xxx?
- The main difference in power draw is not the display nor the sensor, and there's probably not too big of a difference in writing to the card either - it's the processing. And that's still on a camera without 4 pixels (RGGB) per one 1080p pixel output. So, imagine the power constraints for designing a camera like the BM pocket camera and multiply that datastream by 4...
 
The power & processing issues can be solved of course. But it will require more processing, more cooling, more power = bigger, more expensive camera. Want it done on a budget - get a decent 4k 10-bit and do the processing on a computer.

for fully resolving a pair of lines (one black, and one white), 2 rows of pixels should be used, right? Nope, 4 rows needed because of Bayer pattern: blue,green,blue,green. so in matter of resolution,  4k is not actually 4k, let alone 1080p. so 2 megapixel Sigma Foveon like sensor  (3 layered color filter), has potential to be equal to bayer 4k. BUT, its insane to make 2 megapixel Full Frame sensor, cause every single one of pixels will have a massive area, almost 17um x 17um. that will heavily suffer from electron overflowing, and you need a thick dark ND filter for your every outdoor shot. what we lack right now, is not resolution. we lack Acuity. colors are not correct, much of that is based on mathematical guess, thanks to demosaicing, edges are soft for exactly same reason. lots of moire and false data. 4k isnt going to solve all of these, but downscaling, a decent downscaling, can give us some of that acuity we are lacking right now. the problem is, there is no camera equipped with "Built-in Best-in-Class hardware-accelerated downscaler". all the processing is on your own (PC) shoulder. otherwise, why should I care if gazillion pixels has been read out to give me my sweet 1080p? 

I understand that 4k gives better resolution, dynamic range and colour than 1080 - and that these benefits are transferred when 4k is downscaled to 1080 in post. But I don't understand why this is an argument for 4K for people who don't need 4K output. Surely those people would benefit much more if the greater processing power and bitrate was put into a better 1080p codec (e.g. like the Pocket's prores). They would then get the benefit of the larger files in the form of grading latitude, rather than just chucking away information from their very full cards as soon as they got home. Wouldn't they? Personally I'd rather chuck that information away after I've done something useful with it, like a bit of colour correction.
 
I'm not hearing a lot of people complaining that the Pocket isn't 4K. I am however hearing a lot of people complaining that the Pocket is a pain in the a**e to use. Imagine if Panasonic put BMPCC-like tech inside a GH3. We'd all go completely wild. Why isn't that the immediate future? With 4K it just seems to me like we'll be starting the whole H264 journey again, just at a higher level. Why not make HD the best it can be before moving on to 4K? The whole thing smells a lot like the megapixel race to me and, to be honest, the ugly side of capitalism.
Anyway, this is my question: Leaving aside reframing options, why is compressed 4K better than high bitrate 1080 for those who don't need 4K output?
 
Just to be clear, this is a genuine question. I am genuinely hoping to learn something. I am not being pointlessly antagonistic in the hope of rubbing someone up the wrong way. That's just the card I was dealt at birth - to forever write forum posts that elicit the wrath of Hades.