nffclml2ppl

Again from my native country, where DJI has invited a few reps of the 'Internet press' to the European presentation in the sunny Portuguese soil. Here's another sample of the Mavic Pro look. But, that plastic cover shouldn't be there to cover the camera lens when the bird is flying for sure...

To me it is pretty good! The shot on the roof shows that moire is not too severe... so it is already a good point in my opinion.
Two days ago I shot a music video and there was also an operator with his Phantom 3 Pro, it seems more "digital" to me from the shots I have from it.

As already said, I don't see it in that way. I've never interested myself for any of these toys based in so small size sensors. Always refused to sign GoPro or Phantom-like signature. Actually, I've always planned to use something from 4/3" format to begin with, when not S35 as much as possible.
This is the first cinematic outcome I've seen from such tiny category of drones.
Really promising to my eyes. Able to shoot wherever a bigger bird won't fly.
Without such ridiculous oversharpened lines to scream the use of cheap gear every time you go with aerial shots in your material. 

Well, Andrew is not an anonymous poster anymore and GH5 sales will hardly compete with a raw camera but, for some buyers speculation on 6K / 4K@60p / internal 10-bit can "bring some noise to" real deals out there on potential customers. Usually, wise business men think twice when ask a loan from the bank.

No, you've actually lost my post : ) Not on yours but the point your post was addressed to. Speculation (not specs ; ) for wishful thinking specs from the deepest of our dreams doesn't help current reality sales such as I and you want to believe new Kinefinity Terra is able to get.

Even because this can bring some noise to Terra 5K sales, as for instance. And we need those guys to succeed :-)

No evidence of 6K in any of those cameras, or a 10-bit internal codec. And one shouldn't make confident declarations about upcoming products when they're just speculating.

Here you go! :-)

Sorry, this is more like it..
 
 

That logo of theirs is creepy .. it's like a skull who's eye are kept open by force (think of clock work orange therapy)

How will you upgrade to 10-bit when:
a) the manufacturers have their high-end to protect?
b) compact size on large format is unable to go higher bit depth when internal 4K 8-bit 4:2:0 by Sony is out there to pop up full of overheating issues?
The fact 4:2:2 recorded externally brings higher bitrate to you is the only viable choice you have going with a large sensor. Other than that, 10-bit also means a higher bitrate (irrelevant the degree for certain tasks; there's the point), hardly to see internally in these small "toys" whether we cry or not. And for some reason ; ) you have it on GH4 but not on Sonys via HDMI. Why hasn't Blackmagic released yet 4K in a compact package? Because they are too focused on the new Ursas (reason a) above-mentioned) is short to explain it... And when they will, don't count on a large sensor size. The best you can dream about will be the SpeedBooster route. Other than that, you're stuck on 8-bit.
Whining for 10-bit or higher for this market segment is a futile exercise and meaningless. That test proves we have now a solution to help you out with banding. Not really significant for much other (banding as topic), but a way better than 4:2:0 (again, for banding). The comparison speaks by itself, the variables to second it only testify the grace. There's a difference between to dream with and following the t(r)ip. Reality-wise, of course ;-)
No one here is against 'the higher', the point is the way those several existent differences (RELATIVE variations, certain gaps, jumps as you call them can weigh much more than absolute values) and variables can have an impact in our tools for real in order to comply some goal. Those you can use in the field. Not mere wishful thinking for a bunch of geeks we are here :-)

I am not engineer either. No need to be one nor a businessman to figure out a La Palice truth.
That one on 10-bit 4:2:2 lighter than 8-bit 4:2:0 is the first time I've heard. That is, if same codec, same parameters... To be frank and straightforward with you. No, I won't show off and call you stupid in a public place. Nor thinking and writing you are this or that. Read your post again, you'll likely find inaccuracies in your post. I have no need to write the other side is wrong (you say) anyway. But I can tell you very straight using your lexicon, stupid is when we see real tests proving something and we insist this or that theory is the one valid and keep going what experience proves the contrary.
Hey, the lady is not mine. The test is not mine, no need to send me the check. The results are there. Very explicit ones, to say the truth.
A few others much prefer to praise their dolls. Yes, you and others here are also missing the point over there. Apart the fact, brands like to sell expensive toys and whishful thinking has a place but happens to be far away of reality most part of time, you are able to say 8-bit 4:2:0 is not favourable for banding (I've read lots of things over here but this one is new... LOL). OK, let's try to decode your saying, even though, you don't make the necessary effort to decode mine.
Still on the variables? Who said bitrate/codec don't count?!
So (no, not necessarily your saying, take it as sarcasm indeed), let's fulfill the 4:2:0 recipient with empty data and try to see if matches 4:2:2, why not? It reminds me those who think they actually record 10-bit in their external recorder only because they read the specs on the paper they're using a 10-bit codec, even when they stream a 8-bit output from camera.
I only read blah blah but... C'mon, give me, you and everyone a break. This is not a contest to pick up the best smartass ready for. Neither a kindergarten.
(your) point taken, thanks for the link, nice reading :-)
 
PS: Last but not least, speaking of accuracies ; ) the overheating issues seem to come from processing, not sensor. Or you wouldn't be likely to overcome the trouble triggering from the external recorder.

The difference can be another one depending on our setup choices, as for instance where 500gr can make a whole difference:
http://www.red.com/store/products/redvolt-xl
http://www.red.com/store/products/redvolt
 
On the leftover, this is the philosophy:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?67366-Is-it-possible-to-use-Scarlet-EPIC-without-any-Red-LCD-or-EVF
 
Yes, no reason on contrary.
:-)

I think you'll find up there the answer you're looking for:
http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/9467-ursa-mini-vs-raven/?do=findComment&comment=107970

Don't push it, man of the renaissance... LOL Don't try to take advantage because some other poster said yes in some other topic as the only way to make a point on yours ;-)
This test (not mine) is "my contribution" to this thread:
http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/9390-sony-a7s-ii-is-out/?do=findComment&comment=106693

sample extracted from (minute 28:30):
https://vimeo.com/114978513

Of course, variables count. We can't live without them. The same way there'll always be higher bitrate if we change from 4:2:0 to 4:2:2, obviously. On that test, can the difference between codecs, bitrate, etc bring the "whole" difference there? As sunyata wrote three times, maybe. No trouble to second it. Why shouldn't we? What do we have here? Two different teams pretending to themselves their shirt is prettier than the other side? Your loved doll (higher bit depth) is not less mine. Who can say differently? Who would go from Alexa to 8-bit? C'mon.
My beef is with the misconception only 10-bit is the miracle to save your footage from 8-bit banding. This is inaccurate. Countless examples going to the big screen since film has been replaced there (no one is saying it beats film or you said someone said). Dogma falling down? Is that the problem? Something different to believe? And that test fits the case. Beyond 4:2:2 vs 10-bit (a less careful reading has brought your light approach and carefree misinterpretation on the topic of the discussion), with higher bitrate, yeah, better codec and so on. Beware, the devil is in the details.
In behalf of the topic here, ML hack proves these capture devices can top other than the crippled 4:2:0 offer. For some reason, they don't implement it in their more affordable line. OP and article's point. Very accurate BTW.

Who said 4:2:2 is more important than 10-bit? The difference between 8-bit 4:2:2 and 8-bit 4:2:0, it is more significant for your grading. Much different statement. Of course, for certain type of grading. No mention of raw or alike where even 10-bit is short by default. People too much focused on the 10-bit holy grail tend to forget ; ) But, banding was the topic (hence my "the-real-difference" of my post; numbers help but like machines need i-n-t-e-r-p-r-e-t-a-t-i-o-n :-D) :
http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/9390-sony-a7s-ii-is-out/?do=findComment&comment=106562
Speaking of math, let's see with a very simple case: 1) 100,000; 2) 1,000,000; 3) 10,000,000. Where's the bigger difference? Now, take these figures as bucks and your single expense as any number between 100,000 and 1,000,000. Which step will make the whole difference?
Here goes your single example on pictures, posted and reposted more than once:
http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/9355-canon-announces-development-of-8k-cinema-eos-camera-and-120mp-dslr/?do=findComment&comment=105935

So, we have here a very demanding viewer... LOL : )
You are right. This or that camera can give you less than what you're looking for.
But.
There's no 'pictures' without post. This doesn't exist. And if exists, you can't complain. Much effort on post is mandatory. And that is the territory where you can provide the deterritorialization for reterritorialization* of your material, as you wish (e.g. that Japanese sample/video). For a simple reason, flat is higher because comprehends the wider. Hence the fashionable logs nowadays. Straight out of the box means nothing. What are we expecting for? Godard said motion picture is the truth 24 frames a second. He was right but only in a half. The other half is that actually is a big lie whatever frames you decide to tell.
How can't they give you what you're looking for? Trust me, you're just looking for a decent capture device and post. It is useless to say I like this or that camera in a way or another. The best you can say to yourself is if that camera is decent for your purpose/proposal or not. Believe me that you'll find a lot of decent cameras in the track. The trouble is when we blame technology when this one is already available. It only requires much work to find out the best balance and know-how from all of it. No teal + orange stamp (others would call it look of their own which makes them happy with) will affect the countless options on your choices of and for your set(up).
BTW, Ed is very good & versatile.
E :-)
 
*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterritorialization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reterritorialization

Have you followed the basic example I posted up there? (I mean, the A-B-C case). That's the whole point.
In any case, I bet the new BMD cameras will stop the usual whining on 10-bit like a savior mantra.
HDCAM was 8-bit 3:1:1 and all that began the replacement of film for digital. Anything higher is better, yes, but the difference can be pointless or of lower importance when you're able to rid off banding when necessary. No need for an Uzi to hunting birds.
PS: IIRC, it was ProRes and not uncompressed. The comparison is still worthy.

PS: In any case, if you want to "blame" the codec or bitrate for the bigger difference, be my guest. I don't see where this doesn't match the discussion. Your 10-bit request is far away to be mandatory to kill banding. You just need the right balance of some variables. If you read what I'm used to post in these boards, that fits perfectly the equation. Let's not stuck up in our own likings and pay attention to facts with an open mind instead. 10-bit is just a number as any other.

You said it is "not as conclusive as I would like to" based on apparent conclusive stuff. Actually, it is not (as my previous post allegations can detail).
At least, we can agree on the sum up, very well. But please don't tell me I don't much like sunyata's test. Even though, his failed introduction as me and other two posters were able to point out. When finally served for something worthy (you call it better, I would say complementary entry), it is welcome and taken as valid. Except it doesn't touch the other one nor the points observed. The only remark in your behalf is exactly the complementary nature of those other variables beyond the basics 8-bit vs 10-bit dichotomy. And when I see people to still pop up to underestimate 8-bit, I just see the need to reiterate it.
And your point now is? :-)

Mate, so you decide to be my tutor and correct my nonstandard English? LOL C'mon, give a break to your own sanity for your own sake. Yes, it happens people to have some other mother tongue. Your point is? I guess I've just started to repeat myself. We had crossed each other in some other thread earlier today, isn't it? Let me see, the discussion let you move it to here?! ;-) For the sake of your spontaneous invectives, who wrote "the single credible authority on cinematography"?? You : P And don't be disrespectful with EOSHD or you are with every single member used to post here. Go figure if someone would dare to subjectively criticize your own. Ad hominem atacks are a very dirty sport to begin with. They tell a lot about the quality of the man behind an alias. My name and background is in my signature. Yours? Who is the man I have now the commission to chat with? Be a gentleman to this community and reach me on my PM box. You can try to send your message in my native language in order to clear up the things a little bit to me... haha

No. That statement is inaccurate. You've disagreed, true. But, far away to be me to be emotional on that. You've just started to discredit that test (not even mine) because didn't serve your higher bit depth claim. "Baseless assertions" were not mine, pal. My "holier-than-thou" expression as you say now is written in some other (figurative speech) context and in some other thread where here you kept going your crusade over the messenger. We, me and other posters of your side, were even capable to conclude it there. Not exactly agreeing to disagree. Go there and take a second glance on topic. There's much to read.