Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by userage

  1. Sorry whats the question? Are you asking is the GH3 good for stills? In which case yes. Even the GH2 was. It depends on your needs though, but the GH3 looks like an awesome body.

  2. That is why I wonder why 600D was taken as second camera to test, not 60D. I also have 60D and I wanted to sell it a week ago, and to buy Panasonic, but now I wait inpatient. 

    Maybe because its slower than the 60D, that way if they can get it working on the 600D it will most definitely work on 60D because they also use same processor?

  3. I bought a 600D (T3i) earlier this year because I wanted an affordable first camera for learning to shoot indie movies, with the intention to move up to a 5D eventually.


    I've shot a few short movies with it, and the results look very nice on a 80 inch screen.  I shoot at 1080p, 24fps. Would shooting raw at 720p and then upscaling to 1080p yield a better looking picture than what I currently do which is to shoot 1080p with the H.254 codec?


    Another question I have for the experts here is, given the reported hardware limitations in terms of memory controller bandwidth of the 600D, if it is impossible to shot RAW at 1080p, could it be possible to replace the codec for a better one such as ProRes 4444 or CineForm 444?


    In the meantime, I'm starting to save for a 5D Mark III :)


    Possibly, I believe the Canons don't actually resolve 1080 lines in h264 anyway so it probably will be better.




    I highly doubt that, from my understanding they got RAW by simply managing to get a stills burst mode at a lower resolution. That is a far cry from implementing a different codec on the camera.

  4. I think it could easily rival the C100/300, although ProRes would be better for most people.


    Plus I don't know if they can get 1920x1080 RAW, that might simply be too much for the buffer, I don't think everyone wants to shoot 2.35:1. Although the detail resolved is very good, they could do 1663x940 (which the buffer can handle) and simply scale it up to 1080 and I'm sure the detail would still be better than stock.

  5. I can probably get the G6 with Kit lens and maybe 1 more lens, as opposed to the GH2 with kit and 2 other lenses. But your right the G6 has a lot of bonuses and I could just buy some cheaper Canon FDs or so.


    Thanks for all the tests by the way. Do you mind doing a quick one to test the DR? A bit like in this video, so just underexpose something a lot :S




    I wonder if you can pull more out of the shadows in the G6

  6. In scientific terms? I think you better enroll to uni to fully understand that..


    But essentially the different type of glass you use will obviously have an affect because of the way light acts as it passes through. As you can imagine, the structure of thorium is different to calcium fluoride so they light will refract differently as if goes through these materials which all adds to their different characteristics. The lens element design too, they handle the light as it passes through so they are shaping it which can also affect its sharpness. Manufacturing processes will also have an impact, not making the glass smooth enough will definitely show up. Lens coatings play a role as well. All of these things affect the light which causes the colours and contrast to be different..

  7. [quote name='vader' timestamp='1344262130' post='15019']
    Well.....The iPhone has a video bitrate of 22.5MBits/s, and the pureview is about 25MBit/s (according to ffmpeg). This indicates that it is the iPhone which has more compression. Secondly, the whole idea of pureview is to eliminate noise, meaning there is more detail. This is the first report *ever* that tries to say the iPhone has better video. There are many "side by side" video comparisons which show this not to be the case.

    At night, there is no comparison, however in good conditions, the advantage is minimised, as there is naturally less noise. Now if we add zoom into the equation, there is again no competition. Secondly, even if in good conditions the iPhone captures good video, the audio track is inferior. All in all, the best you can say is that in good conditions, the iPhone and pureview are similar. In anything but good conditions, the margin is significant.

    I suppose I am making the assumption that you used 1080p on both phones? Did you use creative or auto mode on the pureview?

    They used Filmic Pro which apparently increases bitrate of the iPhone video. So theres your answer maybe? Would be nice to see a comparison of both of them stock, but the iPhone does have more detail in the Filmic pro samples I've seen.

    I haven't used Camerapro in a while, last time I did it didn't do anything for video but I hear its been updated :S
  8. [quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1344103026' post='14957']
    Yes and yes.

    Any chance you could do quick comparison of the iPhone without filmic pro? I'm just interested to see the difference. Hopefully in the future apps develop to increase the 808s quality as what happened with the Nokia N8
  • Create New...