Shirozina

1 hour ago, sanveer said:

After looking at various smartphone HDR photos I am convinced that cameras and photos too have a lot more dynamic range than we know and can imagine. Photos start galling apart in post more due go the bit and colour depth than due to anything else. If this characteristic of the photo can be handled better, we don't have to worry about assuming that there isn't too much information to begin with. Computational Photography and AI in post should actually, in theory, be able to improve dynamic range of photos even after they've been taken. It's almost like turning B&W photos to colour. The limitations right now, IMHO, are more to to with a lack of imagination by programmers and experts in the field, than anything else. I am not sure you're right about interpolation and it's limitations. Those are more of the accepted limitations of the present times based more on unexplored methodologies more than anything else.  In theory HDR should be possible from a photo, whether physical or digital, and also up-ressed and increased in bit depth. I actually think that downsampling a 4k photo to HD will improve the noise and increase the colour information. It can then be upressed back go 4k and it might be way better than the original photo. It would obviously require a lot of processing power and great algorithms. Also it may not yield the same results and would vary from photo to photo (depending upon the quality of the original photos to begin with). There is that Sensor fusion process where information from 2 sensors is read and a composite image is created with MP count from one and noise foem the other helping out. The same thing can be done with a single image by undergoing a few steps to help improve it vastly. 

Digital sensors have a fixed and measurable DR which is from saturation at one end to where the signal can’t be separated from noise at the other and it doesn’t matter if it’s 8 bit or 16 bit. Also interpolation or resampling can’t recover data not captured in the first place. The  first rule of digital is garbage in and garbage out.

13 minutes ago, sanveer said:

There is a (debatable) school of thought that says that downscaling perfectly from 4k 3840 x 2160 to HD 1920 x 1080 ensures that there is more colour information and less noise, and in thus in theory, the equivalent of more bit depth. There have been lots of articles to push this theory forward. I agree with some of the viewpoints, but I have neither tried it nor an I am sure of how much the inage quality improves. 

 

(Translated this page cause it's in German). 

https://www.slashcam.de/artikel/Grundlagen/4K---Von-RAW-bis-4-2-0.html

And 

https://***URL not allowed***/best-way-downsample-4k-smartphone-footage/

 

Yes downsampling helps and infact is essential for best quality (1:1 can't produce optimal images due to the Nyquist Theorem) but for better colour the sensor has to capture it in the first place and that data can't be interpolated by downsampling and nor can DR be increased beyond what the sensor can capture even if  downsampling and interpolation can reduce noise. 

12 minutes ago, roxics said:

I can't afford to shoot on big guns like Alexa, RED or Venice, so I'm never really getting the true potential of 4K from a 4K H.264/5 camera. 

Bring on the 8K. So long as most of these Japanese camera makers are going to continue to deliver us 8bit H.264/5 files, at least give me more resolution so I can make up the difference in post. 

 

You can't make up the DR or colour fidelity in post.

Have you tried using optimised media and Render cache yet? as I doubt you will get smooth 4k editing without it. I spent a long time setting up my laptop based setup and this was the only solution. Even my 10 core overclocked workstation with 1080ti struggles with smooth playback on some media (esp in Premier).

On 11/24/2018 at 11:46 AM, Martin Trabalik said:

but sometimes I feel I could get more filmic results with vintage lenses (for example with my old Hellios that I am sometimes using). I would like to hear your opinion about Contax Zeiss that are highly praised.

 

I have quite a few Zeiss Contax lenses but I don't see anything 'filmic' about them. They are well made, have good resolution, high contrast (quite poor Bokeh BTW) and stand up well alongside modern glass. If you think FF = 'filmic' then be aware that most feature films in the history of cinema were shot on the equivalent of an APS-C size sensor which you can achieve with a speedbooster on your GH5.

Also with H.264 and similarly highly compressed codecs the CPU does the decompression and not the GPU so your CPU is the limitation and not the GPU. If you want to have smooth playback you need to render optimised media and enable the render cache which will be done by the eGPU but then the resulting media is much easier for the CPU to playback.

In terms of in-camera processing it may be less intensive to go straight from 8k capture to an 8k codec rather than resampling to a 4k and then to a codec?

33 minutes ago, Amazeballs said:

Dude, Resolve playback should work perfectly without optimized media on such a monster card as 1080ti, there is something very wrong if it doesnt. As I sad my built-in 1050 plays back 4k30 inside Davinici and can actually handle 4k60p on its own but not in Resolve (for some fucked up reason). RAM is sufficient. I am asking BM but they did not respond yet. Right now Final Cut seems to be the only program that does this right. 

Tested in Premiere. Its plays 4k30 but 4k60 is choppy. 

I am actually amazed that none of major software video editing companies except Apple solved that thing with smooth playback of freaking video files. Do I need to buy a damn Macbook now? Shit. 

Is playback done with the GPU though? - AFAIK it's used for the main processing tasks which include rendering difficult compressed codecs to ones that the CPU can playback more easily and this is where I get the major benefit as just using the internal GTX1050 causes the laptop to  throttle down to a crawl after a few minutes of intense work due to heat buildup. With the eGPU rendering cache takes a few mins and I can edit with ease and the laptop stays cool and the CPU will run at 100% all day long.

BTW I use an A7r2 for stills so technically I'm already working in '8k' and I can say for certain that it's better than 8mp or '4k'.

2 hours ago, Danyyyel said:

I will never understand, do you shoot or are you just some kind of geek. Because I will never understand people that says thing like that. I mean, can someone at real viewing distance even see more than 2k. The perfect example is the Alexa 2.8k sensor, I don't see anyone complaining about lack of resolution. It is just the geek that might find it sexy to be able to count every pores in an actress face when stopping the image.

Read my last sentence......

5 minutes ago, Amazeballs said:

It is a Studio. I found a way to turn GPU compute off - you need to set GPU choice to Auto. Didnt help though. No the media is not optimized, well 1070 should handle it fine this way, I've seen tests, that is the reason I bought in the first place. Even 1050 handles 4k30p without optimized media. Dont think its about my RAM or other specs. I think it has something to do with a driver. I will test Premiere 2018 soon. 

I've got the same CPU, 32gb of RAM, separate SSD for media cache and optimised media and a 1080ti in an eGPU and it won't play smooth without optimised media and Render Cache.

Premier doesn't use the GPU as much and can't therefore exploit an eGPU but YMMV.

The use display GPU for compute is greyed out - is this resolve studio?

Are you using optimised media and Render cache or just playing media as it is. I can't get GH5 10bit 4.2.2 400mbps  media to play smooth ( the 150mbps is unplayable) without optimised media and Render Cache ( DNxHR HQX works best for me). I also think 16gb of RAM is probably not enough for Resolve. 

8k capture just means true 4k output. Many if not most of today's 4k camera can't actually deliver 4k resolution esp ones with 1:1 pixels sampling. Nyquist's theorem requires 2x the sample rate. I'd certainly be interested in a 60mp stills camera as long a DR isn't compromised and no 16bit does not mean 16 stops of DR.....

Just as 4k displays and TV's give is better HD picture quality then it follows that 8k displays and TV will give better 4k picture quality and remember most output even now is still HD/2k and looks very, very good.........

In the Preferences in Resolve have you got the 'use display GPU for compute ticked' as this will slow it down. You can also here force the resolve to use your eGPU. Also what is the usage in the windows task manager for the eGPU vs internal. (the internal GPU should be inactive.) Also make sure all drivers are up to date for the Nvidia card and the USB-C controler.

30 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

I edit 4k 60fps Mjpg and 4k 60 fps h264 without issue and without render cache or optimize media.

 

 

8 or 10 bit?

There are other obstacles for high intensity use like video editing for which laptops are not designed for. The first one is thermal capacity where the CPU and GPU will be 'throttled' to lower speeds to prevent overheating and the other is how many HD's the PCI bus can handle for the various media locations - 1 for Apps, 1 for a scratch disk and another for the media. Using an eGPU will certainly help with throttling as many laptops share the same cooling system for GPU and CPU so if the GPU is idle the cooling capacity gets a lot better and it will run for longer without throttling. Again it depends what kind of 4k you are editing? - 8 bit Pro res or 10bit H.264? If you are using Resolve it does all the hard rendering of optimised media and Render cache ( which you will need to do on a laptop)  using the GPU and without an eGPU you will be very frustrated - take it from someone who has tried and now has an eGPU setup.

Depends what you mean by 'handle' and what codec of 4k media you are using. I'd say for resolve you are going to need an eGPU to make editing 4k in Resolve a practical proposition. More cores will help and 16mb of RAM may not be enough. 

So the battery that came with the camera is now dead and it won't charge. Good job I have alternative power solutions.

On a positive note I have tried my Panalieca 12-60 2.8-4  and noticed the distortion at the wide end virtually disappears once you get to around 18mm so this could be a good standard lens esp as the stabiliser seems to be more effective than the that on the 12-35.

I call it the 'zeiss look' slider

1 hour ago, TurboRat said:

and with a lot of camera options available, not in a hurry to get this one. 

Maybe post a list of requirements that you are looking for in a camera rather than keep criticising a camera you don't own and don't intend to buy?

4 hours ago, Shirozina said:

Why not get one now and then put it on Ebay and make a quick profit!

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Blackmagic-Design-Pocket-Cinema-Camera-4K-NEW/143010786216?epid=20025419302&hash=item214c1b6ba8:g:kw8AAOSwHjtb6ZPB:rk:3:pf:1&frcectupt=true

It went for over £2k!!!!!!!!!?

1 minute ago, Kisaha said:

Wolfcrow isn't.

 - an audio expert

6 hours ago, Aquilasfx said:

Hello,

I own a GH5, and a zoom H5 with directional mic, but I would like to improve the audio of my video interviews (sometimes taking audio straight on camera with my zoom, is a bit noisy).

Can you suggest me some cheap solutions (100/150€ max) for a good lavalier? Maybe XLR to use with my zoom?

A lav is not the only solution. Simply moving your existing ZOOM  off the camera and placing it nr the sound source will make a substantial improvement to sound quality.  If the subject is static/seated you can put it on a stand under them just out of frame or get a boom pole and 'boom buddy ' and have it just above them out of frame. 

9 hours ago, TurboRat said:

Not gonna wait for a perfect cam, just gonna wait until next year to get a P4K.

Why not get one now and then put it on Ebay and make a quick profit!

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Blackmagic-Design-Pocket-Cinema-Camera-4K-NEW/143010786216?epid=20025419302&hash=item214c1b6ba8:g:kw8AAOSwHjtb6ZPB:rk:3:pf:1&frcectupt=true

17 minutes ago, andrewgray said:

I'm seeing something similar on the Canon Eos R. Shooting Canon log, it seems like canon log looks closer to neutral profile on the recorder. 

It's an HDR screen so it will look less flat than the camera screen. What are the scopes and Zebras telling you?