Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About amanieux

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1,173 profile views
  1. snapdragon 855 does not support 8k video recording so is there a external video chip that records 8k video such as ambarella h3 ? https://www.ambarella.com/news/104/122/Ambarella-Introduces-8K-Ultra-HD-SoCs-for-Virtual-Reality-and-Drone-Cameras you mean it is the smartphone lenses that does not resolve enough details or you mean it is the jpeg quality that compresses the 48mpix image too much and removes details ?
  2. it was discontinued because samsung saw a bigger ROI in smartphone camera business than in ILC so nx1 did not really failed, it is the standalone camera market ( ILC+point and shoot) that was disrupted by the smarthone camera
  3. nx1 was good on details (though many says it is oversharpened) but bmpcc4k has better colors and DR, it has a tone curve that is close to alexa's colors when compared to nx1, a7III and xt3, bmpcc4k does not have the video look
  4. here a 3 of my 2 cents thoughts on the matter 1/nikon and fuji are the only two existing camera makers that can give us best uncrippled video because they are late to the game on the video side of the hybrid cameras market and have no cinema camera line to protect. blackmagic has already strated crippling their bmpcc4k by replacing the lossless cinemadng with a lossy braw that is inferior in quality in firmware 6.2 (they have higher prices cameras that still offers lossless cinema dng raw. it reminds me of GM that made an electric car in the 90s that threatened their ICE cars and then pulled back, look at the documentary it is interesting : https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489037/videoplayer/vi2147287321 ), canon will never deliver raw on eosR it does not make any sense (or very crippled raw in order to not compete with their cinema camera line). 2/ one interesting thing to think about is that for photo there is no lossy raw, only lossless raw, i guess it is due to raw file size that is manageable for photo but not for video - when storage media price will go down in price and reach the 300mB/s write speed required for 4k 12 bit raw 24fps all these lossy video raw will go away, there will be h265 and lossless raw like there is only jpeg and lossless raw for photos. (we already have 1tb m2 ssd that writes at 500mB/s for around $100 today so it will just take a camera maker bold enough to add a m2 slot in their camera). 3/ the idea of lossy raw being a editing friendly video format that plays along well with your PC does not make sense because we will soon have video editing software that will automatically and transparently work with proxy video format under the hood, it is not available yet in video editing software because it need some extra code (i worked at adobe and looked at premiere code paths and i can tell you it is complex) but it will soon be as we are getting close to 6k and 8k raw, they will be forced to do the automatic optimized proxy video in order to be able to simplify the workflow and edit in real time in the UI on existing PC.
  5. the E2 FF is 6K, not sure they can do 120 fps at 6k but i agree it will certainly have faster slomo than nikon z6, good point, i usually forget slomo as image quality always suffers
  6. isn't there a 90% chance of having a sony FF sensor in both zcam e2 and nikon z6 ? if it is raw (real raw i mean, uncompressed or lossless compressed data) then DR and image should be exactly the same no ?
  7. what is so exciting about a FF z2 for $5k, if nikon z6 can deliver its promise of a uncrippled prores raw via ninja V then for $2900 you get FF raw video + proper monitor with tool to expose and focus + a FF compact still camera when you just want to take a few stills travelling light
  8. it will be lossy raw only ,720p cropped , 8 bit raw. and if you put a ef-s lens then it will be limited to 5 minutes max recording time and no audio (there will be a paying firmware upgrade next june to get the audio back, it will be called "magic candle" )
  9. what i don't get is that for such high priced camera as panasonic s1 why don't they offer uncompressed raw on usb 3.0 that has enough bandwidth for 4k raw in 14 bits, is it only to protect their more expensive pro video camera linup ? adding a hardware usb 3.0 path for uncompressed data out of the sensor is obviously not as expensive as putting a 10 bit h265 chip in camera plus the extra costs of upgraded thermal design and bigger battery to handle h265 compression+in camera fast sd-card write.
  10. "the upcoming A7S III is said to be using H.265 compression in their RAW codec which is an interesting hybrid of the two" it is a clever compromise and i know sony marketing team will be happy to label this "raw" but can we (the users) please stop calling "raw" these hybrid lossy codecs that have file size close to distribution codecs but has some more flexibility for better editing in post. the purpose of real raw (as defined by unprocessed data coming out of the sensor) is : 1/ to postpone all processing in post so it can be computed with more precise/sophisticated algorithms on a computer that can compute in non-real time rather than in-camera hardware that must do limited computations in real time due to restrictions on cost, size, power consumption and thermal constraints 2/ achieve higher raw lossless compression ratios for archiving as very complex/slow lossless compression algorithms can be used 3/ offer paths for image quality improvement and reduce raw lossless archive files when better algorithms comes out in the future
  11. this 1:58 slimraw compression result is lossless and the original was lossless cinemadng, correct ?
  12. sorry i am not a photographer i am a computer scientist, my job is to write algorithms were "1" are always visually 1 and "0" are always visually 0 no matter the angle you look at it
  13. sorry you contradict yourself, you say the definition of raw is that its "data not yet processed" and then you say" lossy raw is still raw" but lossy compression is a "processing" of the original data and not a "minimal processing" it is a "heavy processing" involving very complex algorithms what i don't get is that blackmagic could have minimized this BRAWgate but just adding a BRAW 1:1 consisting only of the uncompressed raw data for users who want maximum quality no matter the file size as i am sure there is no possible patent litigation involved on serializing data in a file, any coder can code that in 5 minutes. it is a step down from losless cinemadng raw because it is the exact same data but in a bigger file size but it is better than having nothing if they really have a patent claim litigation to avoid. they perfectly know their users are pixel peeper, how could they think they could get away with it with just a BRAW powder in the eyes ? and you you are correct it was my mistake : "RAW" is not an acronym so we should rather write "raw" or "Raw" if its in the beginning of a sentence
  14. don't want to split hairs but "lossy compression" can be "visually lossless" or "visually lossy" , "lossless compression" is unambiguous because it means compression which does not change a single bit from the uncompressed data so it is visually indistinguishable because it is identical
  15. i suggest we stop amalgamating "lossy compression" with " visually lossless compression" like you involuntary just did "lossy/lossless data compression" is coming from the area of signal processing where there is no room for ambiguity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossy_compression
  • Create New...